Dublin City Council
March 1, 2022

March 01, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1 COUNCILMEMBERS City Council Chamber
Melissa Hernandez, Mayor Dublin Civic Center
Jean Josey, Vice Mayor 100 Civic Plaza
Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember Dublin, CA 94568
Dr. Sherry Hu, Councilmember www.dublin.ca.gov
Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
Regular Meeting of the

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 1, 2022 Location: City Council Chamber
Civic Center
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
CLOSED SESSION 6:30 PM
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM
This meeting will be held in person for the public, and all members of the City Council will be participating in person from the City Council Chamber at Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. Pursuant to California Department of Public Health Guidance for the Use of Face Masks, members of the public attending the meeting that are unvaccinated must wear a face covering while indoors.

Additional Meeting Procedures Available During the COVID-19 Pandemic This City Council meeting will be broadcast live on Comcast T.V. channel 28 beginning at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will also be livestreamed at www.tv30.org and on the City’s website at: https://dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings Members of the public who wish to participate in the meeting electronically have the option of giving public comment via Zoom, subject to the following procedures:
 Fill out an online speaker slip available at www.dublin.ca.gov. The speaker slip will be made available at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 1, 2022. Upon submission, you will receive Zoom link information from the City Clerk. Speakers slips will be accepted until the staff presentation on an agenda item ends, or until the public comment period on non-agenda items is closed.
 Once connected to the Zoom platform using the Zoom link information from the City Clerk, the public speaker will be added to the Zoom webinar as an attendee and muted. The speaker will be able to observe the meeting from the Zoom platform.  When the agenda item upon which the individual would like to comment is addressed, the City Clerk will announce the speaker in the meeting when it is their time to give public comment. The speaker will then be unmuted to give public comment via Zoom.
1 March 01, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2 CLOSED SESSION 6:30 PM
I. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: Certain property below and adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail from northern city limits to southern city limits (APNs 941-2768-6 -1, 941-205-6-6, and 986-1-3-1) Agency negotiator: Linda Smith, City Manager
Negotiating parties: County of Alameda
Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

3.1 Public Comment
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on non-agendized items. Please step to the podium and clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the City Clerk’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a future City Council agenda. The exceptions under which the City Council MAY discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3).

4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the City Council with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the City Council who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor to remove the item.

4.1 Approval of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Minutes and February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting and February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting and February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Minutes Attachment 2 - February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes

4.2 Agreement for Vehicle Maintenance and Repair On-Call Services The City Council will consider approving an agreement for on-call maintenance and repair services for Dublin Police Services vehicles.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Approving an Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge for On-Call Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services.
2 March 01, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3 Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving an Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge for On-Call Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to the Resolution - Contractor Services Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge

4.3 Approval of Plans and Specifications and Award of Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, Waiver of a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Approval of a Budget Change for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard, CIP No. ST0118 The City Council will consider approving the plans and specifications, waiving a minor bid irregularity, and awarding a construction contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project. The project will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive. The City Council will also consider approving a budget change to increase the project funding.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Awarding a Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project (CIP No. ST0118), and approve the budget change.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Awarding a Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project, CIP No. ST0118 Attachment 2 - CIP No. ST0118
Attachment 3 - Bid Results
Attachment 4 - Budget Change Form
Attachment 5 - Resolution No. 23-20 Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.4 City Proclamations for the Month of March
The City Council will consider the following proclamations for the month of March in the City of Dublin: American Red Cross Month, Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month, Irish American Heritage Month, March for Meals, Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and Women’s History Month.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the proclamations.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - American Red Cross Proclamation
Attachment 2 - Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 3 - Irish American Heritage Month Proclamation Attachment 4 - March for Meals Proclamation
Attachment 5 - Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation Attachment 6 - Women's History Month Proclamation
3 March 01, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 4

4.5 Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and Zoning Ordinance Amendments (PLPA-2022-00002)
The City Council will consider approval of the Citywide Multi-Family (MF) Objective Design Standards (ODS) and companion amendments to Title 8 (Zoning) of the Dublin Municipal Code. State law requires local jurisdictions to provide a streamlined ministerial approval process for eligible multi-family residential developments, subject to objective zoning and design review standards. The proposed MF ODS and Zoning Ordinance Amendments would ensure that objective zoning and design review standards are in place. The first reading of the Ordinance approving the Citywide MF ODS and Zoning Ordinance Amendments was held at the February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

The City Council is now being asked to waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Waive the reading and adopt the Ordinance Approving the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and Amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review), and Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance).

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Ordinance Approving the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and Related Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Attachment 2 - Exhibit A to Attachment 1 - Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards
Attachment 3 - City Council Staff Report, dated February 15, 2022, without Attachments

5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION – None.

6. PUBLIC HEARING – None.

7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.1 Status of Community Default to East Bay Community Energy Renewable 100 Power The City Council will receive a report on the status of the default of residential accounts to Renewable 100 electricity through the City’s electricity provider, East Bay Community Energy, and will consider the default electricity power portfolio for non-residential accounts.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the report and provide direction on the East Bay Community Energy default electricity power portfolio for non-residential accounts.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Resolution 04-21 Requesting East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) Enroll City of Dublin Residential Accounts in Renewable 100 as the Default Electricity Product Attachment 2 - Resolution 100-20 Adopting the City of Dublin Climate Action Plan 2030 and Beyond
Attachment 3 - Samples of Renewable 100 Residential Outreach Item 7.1 - PowerPoint Presentation
4 March 01, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 5

8. NEW BUSINESS

8.1 Acceptance of Certification of Petition: Referendum Against Ordinance No. 11-21 Regarding the East Ranch Project and Required Elections Code Actions The City Council will accept the City Clerk’s Certificate of Petition certifying the sufficiency of the referendum petition against Ordinance No. 11-21 regarding the East Ranch Project and will consider either repealing Ordinance No. 11-21 or submitting Ordinance No. 11-21 to the qualified voters of the City of Dublin.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the City Clerk’s Certificate of Petition (Attachment 1), certifying the sufficiency of the referendum petition against Ordinance No. 11-21, and take one of the following actions as required by the Elections Code:

1. INTRODUCE by title and waive the first reading of an Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 11-21 Which Amended the Zoning Map and Approved a Planned Development Zoning District Related State 2 Development Plan and CEQA Findings for the East Ranch Project (Attachment 2); or

2. Pass a motion providing Staff direction to return with a resolution calling and giving notice of a special election [on a specific date] or as part of the November 8, 2022 regular election for the purpose of submitting Ordinance No. 11-21 to the qualified voters of the City.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - City Clerk Certificate of Sufficiency
Attachment 2 - Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 11 -21 Which Amended the Zoning Map and Approved a Planned Development Zoning District Related State 2 Development Plan and CEQA Findings for the East Ranch Project Attachment 3 - Alameda County Registrar of Voters Certificate to Petition Item 8.1 - SB 343

8.2 Discussion Regarding City Council Salaries
The City Council will discuss options regarding adjustments to Councilmember salaries.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss and provide direction to Staff regarding adjustments to City Council salaries.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 10-20 Amending Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08 Attachment 2 - Dublin Municipal Code Section 2.08.020

8.3 Designation of Agency Labor Negotiators, Unrepresented Employee: City Manager and Unrepresented Employee: City Attorney
The City Council will consider the appointment of two Councilmembers as representatives for the City Manager’s annual review and performance evaluation, including discussion of compensation matters, and two Councilmembers as representatives for the City Attorney’s annual review and performance evaluation, including compensation matters.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Appoint two Councilmembers as representatives for the City Manager’s annual review and performance evaluation, including discussion of compensation, and appoint two Councilmembers as representatives for the City Attorney’s annual review and performance evaluation, including discussion of compensation. 5 March 01, 2022 Dublin City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 6 Staff Report

9. OTHER BUSINESS
Brief information only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).

10. ADJOURNMENT
This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability- related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Mission
The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity and inclusion.
6 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting and February 1, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the minutes of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting and February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

DESCRIPTION:

The City Council will consider approval of the minutes of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting and February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

DATE: March 1, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of the February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Minutes and February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
Prepared by: Marsha Moore, MMC, City Clerk
7

ATTACHMENTS:
1) February 9, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Minutes 2) February 15, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 8 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting: February 9, 2022
MINUTES 1

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 9, 2022
Attachment 1
A Special Meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 9, 2022, via Zoom Communications. The meeting was called to order at 4:31 PM., by Vice Mayor Josey.

CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Attendees Present Title
Melissa Hernandez Mayor (arrived at 4:34 p.m.)
Jean Josey Vice Mayor
Shawn Kumagai Councilmember
Michael McCorriston Councilmember
Dr. Sherry Hu Councilmember

CLOSED SESSION
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case.

Facts and circumstances: Letter from Kevin Shenkman to City Clerk, dated December 29, 2021

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Hernandez at 5:12 p.m.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
9 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
Regular Meeting: February 15, 2022

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
Attachment 2
The following are minutes of the actions taken by the City of Dublin City Council. A full video recording of the meeting with the agenda items indexed and time stamped is available on the City’s website at: https://dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings CLOSED SESSION 5:32 PM
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case.

II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: 1 case.

Facts and circumstances: Letter from Kevin Shenkman to City Clerk, dated December 29, 2021

REGULAR MEETING
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, in the City Council Chamber. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 PM., by Mayor Hernandez. 1) CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Attendee Name Status
Melissa Hernandez, Mayor Present
Jean Josey, Vice Mayor Present
Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember Present
Michael McCorriston, Councilmember Present
Dr. Sherry Hu, Councilmember Present
Mayor Hernandez invited Chief Holmes to share comments with the City Council about fallen Dublin Police Deputy Aubrey Phillips.
2) REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Hernandez reported there was no reportable action. 10 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
3) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

3.1) Employee Introductions
The City Council welcomed the new City of Dublin Staff members, Sarah Monnastes, Human Resources Director and Oliver Castillo, Assistant Civil Engineer with Public Works.

3.2) St. Patrick’s Day Celebration Preview
The City Council received a presentation that previews the annual St. Patrick’s Day Celebration which will be held the weekend of March 11-13, 2022, including protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3.3) Public Comment
No public comment was provided.
4) CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Council pulled item 4.3 for further discussion.

4.1) Approved the minutes of the February 1, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting and February 5, 2022 Special City Council Meeting.

4.2) Adopted Resolution No. 12-22 titled, “Approving a Public Art Agreement with Romo Studios for a Public Art Project at Heritage Park” and Resolution No. 13-22 titled, “Approving a Public Art Agreement with Brian Keith for a Public Art Project at Heritage Park,” and approved the budget change.”

4.4) Received the Payment Issuance Report and Electronic Funds Transfers showing a listing of payments issued from January 1, 2022 - January 31, 2022 totaling $13,690,767.41.

On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Mayor Hernandez, and by unanimous vote the City Council adopted the remaining Consent Calendar items. 11 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
SECOND: Melissa Hernandez, Councilmember
AYES: Hernandez, Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston, Hu

4.3) Receive the City Treasurer's Informational Report of Investments for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2021
Item 4.3 was pulled by Councilmember McCorriston for further discussion.

The Councilmembers asked clarifying questions of Bill Dennehy with Chandler Asset Management.

On motion by Councilmember McCorriston, seconded by Vice Mayor Josey, and by unanimous vote the City Council adopted Consent Calendar item 4.3.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
SECOND: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
AYES: Hernandez, Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston, Hu
5) WRITTEN COMMUNICATION – None.
6) PUBLIC HEARING

6.1 Fallon East General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (PLPA-2021-00009)
The City Council received a presentation on a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for approximately 73 acres east of Fallon Road on the GH PacVest and Alameda properties.

Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing.

There being no public comment, Mayor Hernandez closed the public hearing.

On motion by Vice Mayor Josey, seconded by Councilmember McCorriston, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-22 titled, “Approving an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Reports and Approving the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for 72.1 Acres of the GH PacVest Property and the 1.25-Acre Alameda Property.” RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
12 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
MOVED BY: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
SECOND: Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
AYES: Hernandez, Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston, Hu

6.2 Citywide Multi- Family Objective Design Standards, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and Master Fee Schedule Amendments (PLPA-2022-00002) The City Council received a presentation regarding the Citywide Multi-Family (MF) Objective Design Standards (ODS) and companion amendments to Title 8 (Zoning) of the Dublin Municipal Code and amendments to the Master Fee Schedule to establish a fee for Zoning Clearances for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval.

Mayor Hernandez opened the public hearing.

There being no public comment, Mayor Hernandez closed the public hearing.

On motion by Councilmember Kumagai, seconded by Vice Mayor Josey, and by unanimous vote, the City Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED the Ordinance approving the Citywide Multi-Family Objective Design Standards and amendments to Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 (Development Regulations), Chapter 8.104 (Site Development Review), and Chapter 8.116 (Zoning Clearance), including edits to standa 2.6B, 2.6C, and 3.8A, and adopted Resolution No. 15-22 titled, “Amending the Master Fee Schedule by establishing one new application fee, based on time and materials, for Zoning Clearances for Housing Projects Eligible for Streamlined Approval.”
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember
SECOND: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
AYES: Hernandez, Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston, Hu
7) UNFINISHED BUSINESS

7.1 SCS Property Community Outreach
Councilmember Hu recused herself from this item due to her residence being within 500 feet of the SCS property, and therefore considered to be involved in the decision, and left the dais.

The City Council received a presentation and considered approving the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property.

Tom Evans provided public comment.
13 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
Ed Fisher provided public comment.

Richard Li provided public comment.

Shirley Lewandowski provided public comment.

Inge Houston provided public comment.

On motion by Councilmember Kumagai, seconded by Vice Mayor Josey, and by a 3-1 roll call vote, with Mayor Hernandez voting no and Councilmember Hu recusing herself, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16-22 titled, “Approving the Preferred Plan for the SCS Property.”
RESULT: ADOPTED [3-1]
MOVED BY: Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember
SECOND: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
AYES:

NO:

ABSENT:

Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston
Hernandez
Hu
Mayor Hernandez called for a recess at 10:41 p.m.

Mayor Hernandez resumed the meeting at 10:54 p.m.

Councilmember Hu returned to the dais.

7.2 Authorize a Budget Shift to Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project Property Community Outreach The City Council received a presentation and considered shifting funds to Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space project (CIP No. PK0422) to allow for design work to begin in the current fiscal year on the first phase of the project to meet a State grant deadline for a completed project by December 31, 2023.

On motion by Councilmember Kumagai, seconded by Vice Mayor Josey, and by unanimous vote, the City Council authorized a budget change for the shifting of funds to Fiscal Year 2021-22 for the Iron Horse Nature Park and Open Space Project.

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember
SECOND: Jean Josey, Vice Mayor
AYES: Hernandez, Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston, Hu
14 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
8) NEW BUSINESS

8.1 Transition to District-Based Councilmember Elections The City Council received a presentation and considered adopting a resolution of intent to transition from at-large elections to a district-based councilmember election system after receiving a notification threatening litigation under the California Voting Rights Act if the City did not convert from at-large elections for electing members of the City Council to district-based elections.

On motion by Councilmember McCorriston, seconded by Councilmember Kumagai, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-22 titled, “Declaring Its Intention to Transition From an At-Large Election System to a DistrictBased Election System.” RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVED BY: Michael McCorriston, Councilmember
SECOND: Shawn Kumagai, Councilmember
AYES: Hernandez, Kumagai, Josey, McCorriston, Hu

8.1 Discussion Regarding City Council Salaries
By consensus, the City Council agreed to bring Item 8.2 back to a future City Council meeting in March 2022 due to the late hour.
9) OTHER BUSINESS
The City Council and Staff provided brief information-only reports, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234).

By consensus, the City Council directed Staff to bring back an item regarding the installation of community mini-libraries to a future meeting agenda, sometime in late March or April 2022, and directed Staff to bring back a proclamation for Arts Education in the month of March and a proclamation for Arts, Culture, and Creativity for the month of April to the March 15, 2022 City Council meeting. 10) ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hernandez requested a moment of silence in memory of fallen Dublin Police Deputy Aubrey Phillips and adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in her honor. 15 DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 15, 2022

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
16 STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.2
DATE: March 1, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Agreement for On-Call Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services Prepared by: Laura Jammal, Administrative Aide
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving an agreement for on-call maintenance and repair services for Dublin Police Services vehicles.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Approving an Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge for On-Call Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The cost of these services will be charged to Dublin Police Services in accordance with the adopted operating budget.

DESCRIPTION:

Dublin Police Services utilizes vendors for maintenance and repair services of emergency vehicles on an as-needed basis.

Based on current needs related to the ongoing maintenance and repair of Police vehicles, Staff recommends a service contract with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge for a not-to-exceed amount of $90,000 over a roughly two-year term (through June 30, 2024). The maximum compensation amount is based on historical costs, current labor costs, and vehicle conditions.

Section 2.36.100(B)(1) of the Dublin Municipal Code allows for an exception to the competitive bidding process when a specific exception to the formal bid process “where the city’s requirements can be met solely by a single patented article or process” or “when a contract or 17

purchase involves goods of a technical nature, where it would be difficult for a vendor to bid on a standard set of specifications.”
The City has deemed Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge a sole-source provider as the maintenance and repair is specialized, technical in nature, and requires consistency with emergency equipment standards. This contract is therefore exempt from competitive bidding.

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving an Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge for On-Call Vehicle Maintenance and Repair Services
2) Exhibit A to the Resolution – Contractor Services Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge
18 Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted 3/1/22 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX – 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH STONERIDGE CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE FOR ONCALL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES WHEREAS, the City routinely utilizes vendors that specialize in maintenance and repair of emergency vehicles and related equipment; and
WHEREAS, based on current needs, Staff desires to enter into an agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge for on-call maintenance and repair services of emergency vehicles; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.36.100(B)(1) Dublin Municipal Code provides for an exception to competitive bidding when “a contract or purchase involves goods of a technical nature, where it would be difficult for a vendor to bid on a standard set of specifications”; and WHEREAS, because the services are technical in nature and require consistency with the standards required of emergency vehicles and equipment, the City has deemed Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge a sole-source vendor; and
WHEREAS, Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge has proposed a contract for a not-toexceed amount of $90,000 for on-call vehicle maintenance and repair services beginning March 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2024.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Agreement with Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute this agreement and make any necessary, non-substantive changes to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
19 Attachment 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35

STAFF REPORT

CITY COUNCIL

Agenda Item 4.3
DATE: March 1, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Plans and Specifications and Award of Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, Waiver of a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Approval of a Budget Change for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard, CIP No.

ST0118
Prepared by: William Wahbeh, Associate Civil Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City Council will consider approving the plans and specifications, waiving a minor bid irregularity, and awarding a construction contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project. The project will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive.

The City Council will also consider approving a budget change to increase the project funding.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt the Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Awarding a Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project (CIP No. ST0118), and approve the budget change.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

As approved in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the total budget for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge (CIP No. ST0118) is $11,604,439 (Attachment 2) and is funded with a combination of transportation funds, grants, and the Dublin Crossing Fund. The base bid submitted by Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture is $10,202,650.80. Staff recommends a 10% construction contingency in the amount of $1,020,000 to facilitate change orders for unforeseen construction issues, bringing the total potential construction cost to $11,222,650.80.

In addition to the construction contract, the project budget includes expenditures for soft costs which include staff, consultants, permits, fees, and other miscellaneous costs. With these, Staff estimates the total project budget needs to be $14,004,439, requiring a budget increase of 36

$2,400,000. Of this amount, Staff anticipates covering $600,000 through an appropriation by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), which will be included in the project budget when City Council considers the 2022-2027 CIP later this year.

The remaining increase of $1,800,000 requires City Council approval of a budget increase to utilize State Gas Tax, Measure B and BB, and Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee funds, as shown below:

Current Total Project Funding $11,604,439.00
Project Costs
Base Bid $10,202,650.80
Construction Contingency $1,020,000.00
Soft Costs $2,781,788.20
Total Estimated Expenditures $14,004,439.00
Funding Shortfall $2,400,000.00
Additional Funding Sources
State Gas Tax $400,000.00
Measure B Bike & Ped $300,000.00
Measure BB Bike & Ped $200,000.00
Measure BB Local Streets $400,000.00
Eastern Dublin Transportation Impact Fee $500,000.00
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee (future) $600,000.00 Total Additional Funding $2,400,000.00
Current Proposed Budget Increase $1,800,000.00
Future Budget Increase $600,000.00
DESCRIPTION:

The Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project (CIP No. ST0118, Attachment 2). The project will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing at-grade trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive. The bridge ramps will also connect to Don Biddle Community Park, which is located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail. The free-span bridge will be approximately 230 feet in length and provide a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance from the Dublin Boulevard surface. The entire length of the project, including landings north and south of Dublin Boulevard, as well as the bridge span itself, is approximately 1,200 feet.

The project will provide a safer and easier crossing for trail users and facilitate improved traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard by providing a grade-separated crossing over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrians, bicyclists, and BART commuters. The terminus of the southeasterly side of the bridge 37

crossing leads directly to the Dublin-Pleasanton BART Station.

Bid Results and Construction
The City of Dublin issued the bid package on November 12, 2021 for the bridge improvements, which was made up of 43 base bids items and three bid alternate items. A total of nine sealed bids were received on January 20, 2022, with the base bids ranging from $10,202,650.80 to $13,242,978.00. A summary of the bids is provided as Attachment 3. The lowest base bid of $10,202,650.80 was submitted by Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture. Staff is not recommending award of any of the add alternate bid items, as the cost for these items was significantly over the Engineers Estimate and they are not necessary to complete the Project.

The bid submitted by Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture contained a clerical error for Add Alternate Item 3 (Section TP-47C) in which the entry was incorrectly entered. As the City is not selecting any of the add alternates, this error is found to be immaterial. In addition, the Base Contract Total was written in numbers only and was not spelled out in words. The written numbers were consistent with the summation of the base bid extensions and the total base bid amount; therefore, this omission is found to be immaterial. The Public Contract Code and the City’s bid documents define these inconsistencies as “minor bid irregularities,” and authorize the City to waive these irregularities and proceed with the award of the contract.

Staff reviewed the bid results, checked references and necessary licenses, and recommends that the City Council waive the minor bid irregularities and award the project construction contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture as the lowest responsive bidder. Additionally, to facilitate change orders for unforeseen construction issues and avoid related construction delays, Staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to approve change orders up to a contingency amount of $1,020,000.00.

Staff expects the project to begin in Spring 2022 and be substantially complete by Spring 2023. As part of the construction sequence, two full road closures of Dublin Boulevard are anticipated. The first closure will allow for setting the prefabricated bridge (Saturday 9:00 p.m. to Sunday 9:00 p.m.) and the second for the pouring of concrete for the bridge deck (Saturday 11:00 p.m. to Sunday 7:00 a.m.). Public notification will be provided well in advance of these closures through on-street signage, posting on the City’s website, and contact with surrounding businesses and residences. A motorist detour plan has been designed and coordinated with the City of Pleasanton to minimize impacts to the public during these road closures.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
On April 7, 2020, the City Council determined that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment, and approved Resolution No. 23-20 adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 5).

STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:

None.
38

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:

A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, Alameda County Transportation Commission’s Independent Watchdog Committee, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The City Council Agenda was posted.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications, Waiving a Minor Bid Irregularity, and Awarding a Contract to Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project, CIP No. ST0118
2) CIP No. ST0118
3) Bid Results
4) Budget Change Form
5) Resolution No. 23-20 Adopting the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 Attachment 1
Reso. No. XX-22, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/22 Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 22

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, WAIVING A MINOR BID

IRREGULARITY, AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO GOODFELLOW SEQUOIA JOINT

VENTURE FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT, CIP NO. ST0118
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15-18, approving a new Capital Improvement Program Project, the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard (“Project”) and approving a Consulting Services Agreement with Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for the final design phase for the Project; and WHEREAS, the design team has completed the plans and specifications for Project, which will construct a pedestrian and bicycle bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing at-grade trail on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Scarlett Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin did, on January 20, 2022, publicly open, examine, and declare all sealed bids for doing the work described in the approved Plans and Specifications for the Project, which Plans and Specifications are hereby expressly referred to for a description of said work and for all particulars relative to the proceedings under the request for bids; and WHEREAS, Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture’s bid contained minor bid irregularities in that there was a clerical error in the entry of Alternate Item 3 which is not considered as a basis of the lowest bid price nor are any alternate bid items being awarded, and the base contract total was written in numbers only, not spelled out in words, but consistent with the summation of the base bid extensions, and the Public Contract Code and the City’s bid documents authorize the City to waive any minor irregularity and proceed with the award of the contract; and WHEREAS, said bids were submitted to City Staff and that Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for doing said work.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby approves the Plans and Specifications for the Project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby waive the minor bid irregularities since the clerical errors do not change the lowest bid price on the Base Contract.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby award the Contract for the Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture, at a bid of $10,202,650.80, the particulars of which bids are on file in the Office of the Public Works Director.
40 Reso. No. XX-21, Item X.X, Adopted XX/XX/21 Page 2 of 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to approve the Project Contract Change Orders based on the appropriated funds designated for the Project up to the contingency amount of $1,020,000.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to execute the Construction Agreement with Goodfellow Sequoia Joint Venture and make any necessary, non-substantive changes to carry out the intent of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
41 Number ST0118 Program STREETS

ESTIMATED COSTS
PRIOR
YEARS
2020-2021
BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
9100 $17,475 $137,985 $155,4609200 $816,193 $1,603,347 $2,419,5409400 $9,016,979 $9,016,9799500 $2,460 $10,000 $12,460 $836,128 $10,768,311 $11,604,439

FUNDING SOURCE
PRIOR
YEARS
2020-2021
BUDGET 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025
FUTURE

YEARS TOTALS
2201 $12,325 $432,715 $445,0402204 $587,980 $587,9802205 $100,000 $100,0002207 $856,419 $856,4192215 $100,000 $100,0002217 $660,320 $5,384,680 $6,045,0002218 $1,500,000 $1,500,0002220 $163,482 $806,518 $970,0004401 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $836,128 $10,768,311 $11,604,439
ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
State Gas Tax
TOTAL
Measure RR - Safe Routes to BARTDublin Crossing FundTFCA/Transportation for Clean AirMeasure B Sales Tax - Local Streets Fund (ACTC)Measure B Sales Tax - Bike & Pedestrian Fund (ACTC)Measure BB Sales Tax - Bike & Pedestrian Fund Measure BB GrantsRoad Maint. & Rehab. Account (RMRA)Contract ServicesImprovements

IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD
Salaries & Benefits
2020-2025 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThis project provides for the planning, design, and construction of the Iron Horse Trail bridge for bicycles and pedestrians over Dublin Boulevard. The project will construct a truss arch bridge consistent with the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study and preliminary bridge design, approved by the City Council on November 7, 2017. The bridge will provide safer and easier trail access, including access to and from the Dublin-Pleasanton BART station. The Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) approved an allocation of $1,294,000 of Measure BB discretionary funds in Fiscal Year 2017-2018 for the bridge design and environmental clearance. On June 17, 2019 ACTC approved additional funding in the amount of $4,751,000 of Measure BB and $856,419 of Transportation for Clean Air funds for the construction phase of the project. The project will also receive funding of $1,000,000 for construction from a Developer contribution from the Boulevard Project. Fall 2020 BART approved $1,500,000 of Measure RR Safe Routes to BART Grant for the construction phase of the project.ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: $50,000MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works Attachment 2
42 Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard
ST0118
Bid Date:

ITEM Qty. UNIT Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension Unit Cost Extension 1 1 LS $810,000.00 $810,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $848,000.00 $848,000.00 $1,055,000.00 $1,055,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $538,847.29 $538,847.29 $1,200,000.00 $1,200,000.00 2 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 1 LS $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $166,000.00 $166,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.004 1 LS $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $340,000.00 $340,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $227,000.00 $227,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $450,000.00 $450,000.00 5 1 LS $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $4,450.00 $4,450.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 6 7,610 SF $1.00 $7,610.00 $1.00 $7,610.00 $2.00 $15,220.00 $5.00 $38,050.00 $2.00 $15,220.00 $1.50 $11,415.00 $5.00 $38,050.00 $1.00 $7,610.00 $5.00 $38,050.007 14 EA $495.00 $6,930.00 $545.00 $7,630.00 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 $500.00 $7,000.00 $550.00 $7,700.00 $1,300.00 $18,200.00 $1,500.00 $21,000.00 $400.00 $5,600.00 $520.00 $7,280.00 8 680 CY $80.00 $54,400.00 $100.00 $68,000.00 $150.00 $102,000.00 $135.00 $91,800.00 $120.00 $81,600.00 $140.00 $95,200.00 $185.00 $125,800.00 $100.00 $68,000.00 $210.00 $142,800.009 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $11,500.00 $11,500.00 $240,700.00 $240,700.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 10 325 CY $65.00 $21,125.00 $175.00 $56,875.00 $100.00 $32,500.00 $175.00 $56,875.00 $140.00 $45,500.00 $147.00 $47,775.00 $115.00 $37,375.00 $124.00 $40,300.00 $130.00 $42,250.0011 200 TON $130.00 $26,000.00 $193.53 $38,706.00 $250.00 $50,000.00 $250.00 $50,000.00 $160.00 $32,000.00 $188.00 $37,600.00 $275.00 $55,000.00 $300.00 $60,000.00 $314.00 ** $62,800.00 12 100 SF $33.00 $3,300.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $60.00 $6,000.00 $125.00 $12,500.00 $35.00 $3,500.00 $100.00 $10,000.00 $70.00 $7,000.00 $75.00 $7,500.00 $6.00 $600.00 13 7,450 SF $11.00 $81,950.00 $11.00 $81,950.00 $10.00 $74,500.00 $15.00 $111,750.00 $13.00 $96,850.00 $24.00 $178,800.00 $14.00 $104,300.00 $20.00 $149,000.00 $12.00 $89,400.00 14 1 LS $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $385.00 $385.00 $400.00 $400.00 $425.00 $425.00 $950.00 $950.00 $300.00 $300.00 15 1,212 CY $150.00 $181,800.00 $150.00 $181,800.00 $100.00 $121,200.00 $175.00 $212,100.00 $90.00 $109,080.00 $110.00 $133,320.00 $60.00 $72,720.00 $65.00 $78,780.00 $175.00 $212,100.00 16 176 CY $35.00 $6,160.00 $88.00 $15,488.00 $100.00 $17,600.00 $200.00 $35,200.00 $240.00 $42,240.00 $280.00 $49,280.00 $325.00 $57,200.00 $120.00 $21,120.00 $135.00 $23,760.0017 298 CY $300.00 $89,400.00 $110.00 $32,780.00 $250.00 $74,500.00 $250.00 $74,500.00 $180.00 $53,640.00 $240.00 $71,520.00 $120.00 $35,760.00 $75.00 $22,350.00 $155.00 $46,190.0018 161 CY $80.00 $12,880.00 $160.00 $25,760.00 $100.00 $16,100.00 $150.00 $24,150.00 $110.00 $17,710.00 $773.00 $124,453.00 $140.00 $22,540.00 $65.00 $10,465.00 $160.00 $25,760.0019 1,435 CY $150.00 $215,250.00 $90.00 $129,150.00 $140.00 $200,900.00 $85.00 $121,975.00 $140.00 $200,900.00 $124.00 $177,940.00 $125.00 $179,375.00 $136.00 $195,160.00 $90.00 $129,150.0020 1,406 LF $250.00 $351,500.00 $270.00 $379,620.00 $330.00 $463,980.00 $265.00 $372,590.00 $280.00 $393,680.00 $275.00 $386,650.00 $300.00 $421,800.00 $325.00 $456,950.00 $360.00 $506,160.0021 268 LF $500.00 $134,000.00 $533.00 $142,844.00 $610.00 $163,480.00 $575.00 $154,100.00 $580.00 $155,440.00 $595.00 $159,460.00 $700.00 $187,600.00 $650.00 $174,200.00 $700.00 $187,600.0022 1 LS $110,500.00 $110,500.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.00 $127,000.00 $127,000.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.0023 237 CY $2,200.00 $521,400.00 $3,600.00 $853,200.00 $2,600.00 $616,200.00 $3,500.00 $829,500.00 $3,500.00 $829,500.00 $4,030.00 $955,110.00 $2,000.00 $474,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,185,000.00 $3,000.00 $711,000.0024 329 CY $325.00 $106,925.00 $1,000.00 $329,000.00 $550.00 $180,950.00 $1,000.00 $329,000.00 $1,000.00 $329,000.00 $500.00 $164,500.00 $600.00 $197,400.00 $425.00 $139,825.00 $600.00 $197,400.0025 95 CY $450.00 $42,750.00 $700.00 $66,500.00 $750.00 $71,250.00 $1,250.00 $118,750.00 $1,000.00 $95,000.00 $725.00 $68,875.00 $700.00 $66,500.00 $700.00 $66,500.00 $600.00 $57,000.0026 156 CY $1,800.00 $280,800.00 $2,150.00 $335,400.00 $5,000.00 $780,000.00 $2,250.00 $351,000.00 $3,400.00 $530,400.00 $2,200.00 $343,200.00 $3,194.00 $498,264.00 $2,700.00 $421,200.00 $3,000.00 $468,000.0027 349 CY $2,100.00 $732,900.00 $1,850.00 $645,650.00 $1,200.00 $418,800.00 $2,500.00 $872,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,047,000.00 $2,750.00 $959,750.00 $1,323.00 $461,727.00 $2,800.00 $977,200.00 $2,200.00 $767,800.0028 63 CY $1,500.00 $94,500.00 $1,550.00 $97,650.00 $2,000.00 $126,000.00 $865.00 $54,495.00 $2,000.00 $126,000.00 $2,550.00 $160,650.00 $2,200.00 $138,600.00 $2,600.00 $163,800.00 $1,800.00 $113,400.0029 5,448 SF $175.00 $953,400.00 $200.00 $1,089,600.00 $210.00 $1,144,080.00 $25.00 $136,200.00 $200.00 $1,089,600.00 $210.00 $1,144,080.00 $175.00 $953,400.00 $225.00 $1,225,800.00 $215.00 $1,171,320.00 30 19,272 SF $1.00 $19,272.00 $15.00 $289,080.00 $15.00 $289,080.00 $3.50 $67,452.00 $3.00 $57,816.00 $2.00 $38,544.00 $5.00 $96,360.00 $10.00 $192,720.00 $3.00 $57,816.00 31 24 LF $250.00 $6,000.00 $250.00 $6,000.00 $235.00 $5,640.00 $75.00 $1,800.00 $232.00 $5,568.00 $232.00 $5,568.00 $150.00 $3,600.00 $225.00 $5,400.00 $150.00 $3,600.0032 72,484 LB $2.50 $181,210.00 $1.50 $108,726.00 $2.00 $144,968.00 $1.75 $126,847.00 $1.46 $105,826.64 $1.50 $108,726.00 $2.00 $144,968.00 $1.75 $126,847.00 $1.75 $126,847.0033 204,940 LB $1.50 $307,410.00 $1.30 $266,422.00 $1.50 $307,410.00 $1.75 $358,645.00 $1.26 $258,224.40 $1.35 $276,669.00 $2.00 $409,880.00 $1.55 $317,657.00 $1.55 $317,657.0034 154 EA $9.00 $1,386.00 $9.00 $1,386.00 $15.00 $2,310.00 $15.00 $2,310.00 $8.75 $1,347.50 $9.00 $1,386.00 $15.00 $2,310.00 $11.00 $1,694.00 $23.00 $3,542.0035 1,324 LB $13.00 $17,212.00 $25.00 $33,100.00 $15.00 $19,860.00 $90.00 $119,160.00 $20.00 $26,480.00 $23.00 $30,452.00 $30.00 $39,720.00 $34.00 $45,016.00 $12.00 $15,888.0036 1 LS $93,000.00 $93,000.00 $131,000.00 $131,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $72,000.00 $72,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.0037 19,272 SF $1.40 $26,980.80 $1.25 $24,090.00 $1.50 $28,908.00 $3.25 $62,634.00 $1.25 $24,090.00 $2.25 $43,362.00 $6.50 $125,268.00 $2.25 $43,362.00 $1.50 $28,908.0038 2,169 LF $500.00 $1,084,500.00 $476.00 $1,032,444.00 $520.00 $1,127,880.00 $865.00 $1,876,185.00 $795.00 $1,724,355.00 $880.00 $1,908,720.00 $900.00 $1,952,100.00 $550.00 $1,192,950.00 $600.00 $1,301,400.00 39 460 LF $380.00 $174,800.00 $355.00 $163,300.00 $500.00 $230,000.00 $850.00 $391,000.00 $760.00 $349,600.00 $880.00 $404,800.00 $900.00 $414,000.00 $425.00 $195,500.00 $570.00 $262,200.00 40 1 EA $1,660,000.00 $1,660,000.00 $1,782,300.00 $1,782,300.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,250,000.00 $2,250,000.00 $1,688,000.00 $1,688,000.00 $1,980,000.00 $1,980,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $2,480,000.00 $2,480,000.00 $2,300,000.00 $2,300,000.00 41 1 EA $250,000.00 $250,000.00 $350,000.00 $350,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $515,000.00 $515,000.00 $808,000.00 $808,000.00 $372,000.00 $372,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $640,000.00 $640,000.00 $205,000.00 $205,000.00 42 1 LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $198,000.00 $198,000.00 $118,000.00 $118,000.00 $215,000.00 $215,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $175,000.00 $175,000.0043 1 LS $700,000.00 $700,000.00 $679,539.00 $679,539.00 $650,000.00 $650,000.00 $700,000.00 $700,000.00 $700,000.00 $700,000.00 $690,000.00 $690,000.00 $800,000.00 $800,000.00 $975,000.00 $975,000.00 $1,515,000.00 $1,515,000.00 TOTAL $10,202,650.80 $10,998,000.00 $11,890,716.00 * $12,475,468.00 $12,561,202.54 $13,062,105.00 $13,139,042.00 $13,170,303.29 * $13,242,978.00 * Mathematical error "summation of bid items"
** Mathematical error "unit cost extension"
Add Alternates
1A 1 LS $1,500,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $993,000.00 $993,000.00 $865,000.00 $865,000.00 $1,608,000.00 $1,608,000.00 $1,525,000.00 $1,525,000.00 $1,850,000.00 $1,850,000.00 $232,000.00 $232,000.00 $306,250.00 $306,250.001B 1 LS $2,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $1,250,000.00 $1,067,000.00 $1,067,000.00 $1,125,000.00 $1,125,000.00 $2,020,000.00 $2,020,000.00 $1,770,000.00 $1,770,000.00 $1,950,000.00 $1,950,000.00 $556,000.00 $556,000.00 $368,750.00 $368,750.00 1C 1 LS $360,000.00 $360,000.00 $1,550,000.00 $1,550,000.00 $1,256,000.00 $1,256,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $2,468,000.00 $2,468,000.00 $2,076,000.00 $2,076,000.00 $2,250,000.00 $2,250,000.00 $967,000.00 $967,000.00 $609,375.00 $609,375.00 List of Sub-Contractors
Oliveira Fence
Bay Cities Paving & Grading Bay Cities Paving & Grading IMRAE Painting IMRAE PaintngPeninsula Crane & Rigging Maxim Crane Works Techno Coatings

CITY OF DUBLINPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTENGINEERING DIVISION

BID SUMMARY
Project Name: Project No. :

Structural Concrete, BridgeStructural Concrete, Bridge (Polymer Fiber)Lightweight ConcreteTrail Lighting (Base Bid)Joint Seal (MR 1 1/2")Bar Reinforcing Steel (Bridge)Headed Bar ReinforcementMiscellaneous Metal (Bridge)Bridge Deck Drainage SystemModified Metal Bridge RailingFurnish Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge (230')Erect Prefabricated Steel Truss Bridge (230')Structural Steel (Wave Railing) Painting
Myers & Sons Ghilotti Granite Rock MCM Construction Walsh Construction Bridgeway Civil Constructors Bridgeway Civil Constructors Description Goodfellow Sequoia JV Granite Construction Gordon N. Ball Myers & Sons Ghilotti

DESCRIPTION

LOW BIDDER
Trail Lighting (Alternative 1)Trail Lighting (Alternative 2)Trail Lighting (Alternative 3)Structural Backfill (Retaining Wall)Light Weight Cellular Concrete Backfill (Class II)Structural Concrete, Retaining WallStructural Concrete, Retaining Wall (Footing)Architectural TreatmentBar Reinforcing Steel (Retaining Wall) January 20, 2022
BASE BID Goodfellow Sequoia JV Granite Construction Gordon N. Ball Granite Rock MCM Construction Walsh Construction
Mobilization (10% of construction cost)COVID Health and Safety ProtocolWater Pollution Control (Includes SWPPP)Traffic ControlClearing and GrubbingRemove Landscape and IrrigationRemove TreeRoadway ExcavationSheeting, Shoring, and BracingClass 2 Aggregate BaseHot Mix AsphaltRoadside SignMinor Concrete (Sidewalk - ADA Ramp)Energy Dissipation CobblestoneStructural Excavation (Retaining Wall)Spray-On Concrete VeneerAnti-Graffiti CoatingMetal Bridge RailingStructure Excavation (Bridge)Structure Backfill (Bridge)24" Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Concrete Piling36" Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Concrete PilingPrestressing Cast-In-Place ConcreteStructural Concrete, Bridge Footing Tennyson Electric
Reinforcing Steel CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar CMC Rebar Electrical Columbia Electric W. Bradley Electric Lee Contractors & Consultants W Bradley Electric Columbia Electric W Bradley Electric St. Francis Electric Phoenix Electric Cell-Crete Corporation
CIDH Pile Drill Tech Drilling Mahaffey Drilling Drill Tech Drilling Mahaffey Drilling Drill Tech Drilling West Coast Drilling Drill Tech Drilling Mahaffey DrillingCellular Concrete Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Cell-Crete Corporation Conco Cell-Crete Corporation Schwager Davis
Construction Area Signs Schotka ConstructionPre-Stressing Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Schwager Davis Handrail CraneVeyor Corporation CraneVeyor Corporation Golden Bay Fence Golden Bay Fence Golden Bay Fence Golden Bay Fence CraneVeyor Corporation Furnish & Erect Steel Truss Bridge Adams & Smith Stinger Bridge & Iron Stinger Bridge & IronAnti Graffiti CNJ Enterprise CNJ EnterpriseJoint Seal Austin EnterpriseCrane ServiceFencePaving & GradingMinor Concrete FBN Vanguard Attachment 3
43 Budget Change Reference #:

From Un-Appropriated Reserves X get Transfer Between Funds From Designated Reserves Other
Account Amount Account Amount
ST0118.9400.9401 (Improvements) $1,800,000
3600.9601.49999 (Transfers In) $1,800,000
ST0118.2201 (2201.9601.89101) - Gas Tax Fund Transfers Out $400,000 ST0118.2205 (2205.9601.89101) - Measure B Bike & Ped Fund Transfers Out $300,000 ST0118.2215 (2215.9601.89101) - Measure BB Bike & Ped Fund Transfers Out $200,000 ST0118.2214 (2214.9601.89101) - Measure BB Local Streets Fund Transfers Out $400,000 ST0118.4301 (4301.9601.89101) - EDTIF Fund Transfers Out $500,000 3/1/2022
Posted By: Date:

As Presented at the City Council Meeting
**********Finance Use Only**********

CITY OF DUBLIN

REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE
FISCAL YEAR 2021-22

BUDGET CHANGE FORM

DECREASE BUDGET AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET AMOUNT
City Council's Approval Required
EXP: Iron Horse Bridge at DublinBlvd (PK0422)
Increase in project cost due to higher bids received for the project Attachment 4
44 Reso No. 23-20, Item 4.11, Adopted 04/07/20 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 23 - 20

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN

ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING

A PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION FOR THE IRON HORSE TRAIL BRIDGE AT DUBLIN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Iron Horse Trail Bridge at Dublin Boulevard Project ( PROJECT) is proposing to construct a bicycle and pedestrian bridge in the general vicinity of Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Drive Intersection; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2019, the Alameda County Transportation Commission allocated 5,607,419 in grant funding to the City of Dublin for the Construction phase of the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, to receive this grant funding a local match of $2,694,581 will be required and adequate local transportation and developer funds are available to meet this requirement ; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2013, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 186 -13, incorporated herein by reference, certifying an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project (“Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR”, SCH 2012062009) ("DCEIR”); and WHEREAS, the construction of a bridge (grade-separated) crossing for Iron Horse Trail across Dublin Boulevard was included as a mitigation measure in the DCEIR; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2015, the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan, Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (“Addendum”), concluding that the minor changes proposed would not result in any of the conditions that would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR and therefore that an addendum to the DCEIR should be prepared; the City Council also confirmed the findings of the DCEIR and the statement of overriding considerations originally adopted in 2013; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017, the Dublin City Council approved the Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study as well as the proposed design of a bridge crossing at Dublin Boulevard; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 2018, a public meeting was held to discuss the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, there is a portion of the PROJECT that occurs outside the DCEIR study area on lands that have not previously been studied; and
Attachment 5
45 Reso No. 23-20, Item 4.11, Adopted 04/07/20 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/SMND) to determine whether supplemental environmental review was required for the currently proposed PROJECT under CEQA standards. The IS/SMND examined whether there were substantial changes to the proposed development, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information, any of which would result in new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the DCEIR or whether any other standards for supplement environmental review were met; and
WHEREAS, the IS/SMND for the PROJECT included a wetland delineation study and a cultural resources report, and determined that the DCEIR adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts for the PROJECT with the supplemental analyses set forth in the IS/SMND; and
WHEREAS, all relevant mitigation measures from the DCEIR will be implemented for the PROJECT as the DCEIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations for the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS, the IS/SMND determined that the PROJECT would not result in any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public review and intent to adopt a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was thereafter duly posted on November 22, 2019, and the draft IS/SMND was circulated for public review from November 25, 2019 to December 16, 2019; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin received one comment letter during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated April 7, 2020 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the PROJECT and related IS/SMND for the City Council and recommended adoption of the IS/SMND and approval of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the IS/SMND, as well as the prior DCEIR, the Addendum, and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the PROJECT.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following:

A. The Dublin City Council has reviewed and considered the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration including comments received during the public review period, prior to taking action on the PROJECT.

B. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describes the environmental impacts of the PROJECT.

C. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as identified in the DCEIR, adequately describes the impacts and mitigations for this PROJECT and is incorporated by reference herein, to the extent applicable to this PROJECT.
46 Reso No. 23-20, Item 4.11, Adopted 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3 D. On the basis of the whole record before it, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the PROJECT as approved with mitigation will have a significant effect on the environment.

E. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Regulations.

F. The Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration is complete and adequate and reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis as to the environmental effects of the PROJECT.

G. Following adoption of this Resolution, City staff is authorized and directed to file with the County of Alameda a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the above findings, the Dublin City Council adopts the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration attached as Exhibit A for the PROJECT and the applicable mitigation measures in the DCEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby approves the Project Funding Agreement with the Alameda County Transportation Commission attached hereto as Exhibit B to this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Project Funding Agreement.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 2020, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Goel, Hernandez, Josey, Kumagai and Mayor Haubert NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
47 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019
48 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration The City of Dublin is considering construction of the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing ( Overcrossing Project) that would include a free-span bridge structure and ramps to connect the bridge with the existing Iron Horse Trail where it occurs on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard. The City’ s decision to construct the overcrossing constitutes a project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires a discretionary action by the City of Dublin (approve the Overcrossing Project for construction). As such, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must evaluate the potential for construction or operation of the Overcrossing Project to create adverse environmental effects. This Initial Study/ Supplemental MND (IS/ SMND) has been prepared for the Overcrossing Project pursuant to the rules for supplemental environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as described below.

Description of the Proposed Project
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a major regional pedestrian and bicycle trail through central Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, providing non-motorized access to local communities and regional transit facilities including the nearby Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station. Generally following a former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way that was abandoned in 1977, the trail passes through the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, Alamo, Walnut Creek, and Concord and unincorporated areas of the Counties of Contra Costa and Alameda.

The Iron Horse Regional Trail is maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District. It has several existing bridges over busy roadways to help improve traffic flow on the roadways and facilitate pedestrian/ bicycle movement along the trail.

Within the City of Dublin, the existing trail runs from northwest to southeast as it approaches Dublin Boulevard, which is a heavily travelled east-west roadway. Trail users crossing Dublin Boulevard must use the sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 200 feet to cross the street at the existing Scarlett Drive signalized intersection and use the sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 100 feet to get back to the trail (Figure 1).

The primary objective of the Overcrossing Project is to provide a safe crossing for trail users and to facilitate improved traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard by providing a grade- separated bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Overcrossing Project would 49 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

allow trail users to stay on the trail and cross over multiple lanes of automobile traffic on the proposed free-span bridge structure ( Figure 2) without disrupting vehicular traffic flow.

The Overcrossing Project would require construction of bridge structure, support foundations, and graduated ramps facilitating connection to the existing at-grade trail on the north and south side of Dublin Boulevard. The bridge ramps will also connect to Don Biddle Park which is currently under construction and is located on the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way. The proposed free-span overcrossing structure would be approximately 230 feet in length and provide a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance from the Dublin Boulevard road surface ( Figure 2). The entire length of the Overcrossing Project, including landings north and south of Dublin Boulevard, as well as the bridge span itself, is approximately 1,200 feet in length. The project area, which includes the total area that would be utilized for project construction encompasses approximately 2 acres (Figure 3).

CEQA Background
On November 5, 2013, the City Council approved Resolutions 186-13 (EIR certification) and 187-13 (Dublin Crossing Specific Plan [ DCSP] approval and General Plan amendments), as well as Ordinances 07-13 (Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map changes) and 08-13 (Development Agreement). The DCSP covers an area of 189 acres and is generally bound by 5th Street to the north, Scarlett Drive to the west, Dublin Boulevard to the south, and Arnold Road to the east. Buildout of the DCSP is currently under way and includes construction of a residential mixed-use project with up to 1,995 single- and multi-family residential units; up to 200,000 square feet of retail, office, and/ or commercial uses; a 30-acre Community Park (Don Biddle Park); a 5-acre Neighborhood Park, and a 12-acre school site.

The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR ( DCEIR), which was certified as part of the approvals listed above, concluded that build out of the DCSP would result in significant cumulative impacts from short-term construction air quality emissions and long-term operational emissions primarily in the form of vehicle and equipment exhaust.

The DCEIR document determined that the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard would operate at an unacceptable Level of Service F in the PM peak hour under both 2035 cumulative no project and 2035 cumulative plus project conditions. The DCEIR concluded that a grade separated crossing of the trail over Dublin Boulevard would allow more green time to be allotted to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard at its intersection with Scarlett Drive. With implementation of DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 requiring a grade-separated crossing for the Iron Horse trail over Dublin Boulevard, the Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at level of service (LOS) C during the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 was also established in the DCEIR to reduce future emissions from Dublin Boulevard motorists stopping at the crosswalk at Scarlett Drive during commute hours to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross Dublin Boulevard to access the Iron Horse Trail. Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 in 50 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

the DCEIR specifically requires construction of a bridge crossing for the Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3: Construction of a Grade Separated Crossing at the Intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. To mitigate the impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard due to higher rate of pedestrians/ bicyclists crossings at Dublin Boulevard, a grade separated crossing should be utilized. The grade separated crossing would eliminate the need for at-grade pedestrian actuations at the traffic signal, which would allow more green time to be allocated to through traffic on Dublin Boulevard.

Although impacts at the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard could be mitigated to less than significant, the DCEIR determined that the following impacts would remain significant even with implementation of all feasible mitigation:

Short-term Construction Air Quality – The DCEIR concluded that even with all feasible construction mitigation measures, the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project would generate construction emissions exceeding BAAQMD thresholds.

Long-term Operational Air Quality –With application of the measures/ design features regarding area and mobile source emissions within the Specific Plan, the DCEIR determined that operational emissions would exceed the thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM10.

Long-term Operational Impacts to Freeway Ramps – The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan project would result in significant impacts to the following freeway ramps:
o Southbound Hacienda Drive to I-580 Eastbound On-ramp under project and cumulative conditions
o Southbound Tassajara Road to I-580 Westbound On-ramp under cumulative conditions.

The DCEIR set forth Mitigation Measure 3.12-7 to modify ramp metering rates so that more vehicles could access the freeway. However, because the freeway ramps are operated by Caltrans, the City could not guarantee implementation of this mitigation measure.

Because the DCEIR concluded that, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, these impacts could not be reduced to a less-than-significant level, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted along with the DCEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 ( a)(2).
51 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Subsequently, on June 2, 2015 the City Council adopted a CEQA Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Amendments to the General Plan, DCSP, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan related to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. The addendum concluded that the minor changes proposed for the General Plan, DCSP, and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would not result in any of the conditions that would require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR and therefore concluded that an addendum to the DCEIR should be prepared. The City Council also confirmed the findings of the Final EIR and the statement of overriding considerations originally adopted in 2013.

Applicable CEQA Requirements and Conclusions
Although a grade- separated overcrossing for the Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard is described in the DCEIR and is included as a mitigation for traffic impacts, the analysis in the DCEIR does not specifically address the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the Overcrossing Project. Thus, it is the purpose of this document to analyze environmental impacts specifically related to the Overcrossing Project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, which identifies the following conditions requiring subsequent environmental review following certification of an EIR:
a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
52 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The environmental impacts of the Overcrossing Project were therefore analyzed based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 in the form of the following questions:
a) Would the proposed Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project involve substantial changes to the project analyzed in the Dublin Crossing EIR that would result in either (1) new significant impacts not identified in the Dublin Crossing EIR or (2) any of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the DCEIR being substantially more severe? Findings: There are no substantial changes to the overall 189-acre project analyzed in the DCSP EIR. The proposed Overcrossing Project will add foundation and footings for the free-span overcrossing of Dublin Boulevard plus ramps to connect with the existing trail at grade. Land use and approved development in the DCSP would not be changed as a result of construction and operation of the overcrossing structure and associated access ramps connecting the structure to the Iron Horse Trail. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. b) Have any substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan is being undertaken such that the proposed Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project would involve either new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the Dublin Crossing EIR? Finding: While the DCEIR did not specifically address impacts associated with the Overcrossing Project, the northern landing for the project is located within the westernmost portion of Don Biddle Community Park adjacent to the east side of the Scarlett Drive right-of-way, and the impacts associated with both the park and Scarlett Drive were analyzed in the DCSP.

Construction of the Overcrossing Project would begin after development of the 30-acre Don Biddle Community Park has been completed. Temporary construction impacts of the proposed bridge crossing on park uses will be subject to the mitigation measures established in the DCEIR.

Neither the bridge crossing itself nor the southern landing of the overcrossing are within the area analyzed in the DCEIR. Therefore, the analyses were undertaken for this 53 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

IS/ SMND, including a wetland delineation study (Appendix B) and a cultural resources report (Appendix C). These analyses substantiate that the modifications to Don Biddle Community Park, along with addition of the proposed bridge crossing and southerly landing to the project area analyzed in the DCEIR would not cause any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in that EIR. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the DCEIR that shows ( 1) the Overcrossing Project at Dublin Boulevard would result in a new significant effect not addressed in that EIR or a substantially severe significant effect than was identified in that EIR; ( 2) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible but the Applicant has declined to adopt them; or (3) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those in the DCEIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the Applicant declines to adopt them?
Finding: The design of the trail overcrossing of Dublin Boulevard and related construction details were not known and could not have been known at the time of the DCEIR. However, the analyses undertaken for this IS/ SMND, including a wetland delineation study and a cultural resources report, have determined there is no new information showing a new or substantially more severe significant effect than those identified in the DCEIR would result. No mitigation measures previously determined to be infeasible are now feasible, nor are any mitigation measures considerably different than those set forth in the DCEIR now needed to address the impacts of the proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard. All relevant mitigation measures from the DCEIR will be implemented for the bridge crossing project as that EIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development. Appendix D includes a list of the DCEIR mitigation measures that would apply to the Overcrossing Project.

The DCEIR identified and analyzed three alternatives ( No Project, Reduced Development, Alternate Use) and did not identify any additional alternatives that were considered and rejected from further analysis because they were infeasible. The three alternatives analyzed in the DCEIR were rejected as they did not attain most basic project objectives, did not significantly reduce Project impacts, and cannot now be feasibly developed since construction of the Specific Plan, as it was approved, is well under way. No alternatives exist that are considerably different than those set forth in the DCEIR which would address the impacts of the proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard.
d) Should a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration be prepared? Finding: This IS/ SMND evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Overcrossing Project at Dublin Boulevard and demonstrates that the Overcrossing Project would not 54 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

result in any of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Because the proposed Overcrossing Project is subject to mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration was therefore prepared.

Conclusion
This Supplemental MND is prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts for the project with the supplemental analyses set forth in this IS/ SMND.

This Supplemental MND will be circulated for public review for 20 days in accordance with CEQA requirements. A 20-day public review is appropriate since the proposed Overcrossing Project does not meet any of the criteria set forth for Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15026.

The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. 55 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration October 2019
56 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND
Page i
Table of Contents
Background and Project Description ........................................................................................ 1 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................... 8 Appendices
A Special Status Species Table
B Wetland Delineation Report
C Cultural Resources Technical Study
D DCEIR Mitigation Measures
List of Figures
Figure 1: Existing Conditions
Figure 2: Proposed Project
Figure 3: Project Area
Figure 4: Simulated View of Proposed Project
Figure 5: Project Area South of Dublin Boulevard
Figure 6: Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation
Figure 7: Flood Hazard Map
Note: All figures are included at the end of the document.

List of Tables
Table 1. San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Status ……………………………………………. 20 Table 2. Previous Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area ………………………… 39 Table 3. Typical Construction Activities Noise Levels ………………………………………………… 80 Table 4. Typical Noise from Construction Equipment ……………………………………………….. 81 57 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND
Page ii
List of Acronyms
A-P Alquist-Priolo
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACE Altamont Commuter Express
AQMPs Air Quality Management Plans
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards(
Cal/ EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAP Clean Air Plan
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDMG California Department of Mines and Geology
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
DBH diameter at breast height
DCEIR Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR
DCSP Dublin Crossing Specific Plan
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EACCS Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
58 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND
Page iii
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Environmental Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGC Fish and Game Code
GHG greenhouse gas
HAPs hazardous air pollutants
HOV high occupancy vehicle
Hp horsepower
HRS Hazard Ranking System
IS/ SMND Initial Study/ Supplemental MND
LOS level of service
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx nitrogen oxide
NPL National Priority List
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 Ozone
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PDAs Priority Development Areas
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PM10 coarse particulate matter
ROGs Reactive Organic Gases
SB Senate Bill
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SHPO State Historical Preservation Office
SLF Sacred Lands File
59 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Initial Study/ Supplemental MND
Page iv
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxide
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
USC United States Code
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services
USGS United States Geologic Survey
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
60 Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing
Initial Study/Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration Background and Project Description
Project Title
Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project
Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person and Phone Number
Obaid Khan
Transportation and Operations Manager
Phone: 925-833-6630
obaid.khan@dublin. ca.gov
Project Location and Setting
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is a major regional pedestrian and bicycle trail through central Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, generally following a former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way that was abandoned in 1977. The Iron Horse Regional Trail was first established in 1986. The trail currently passes through the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, Danville, Alamo, Walnut Creek, and Concord and unincorporated areas of the Counties of Contra Costa and Alameda. The Iron Horse Regional Trail, which is maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District, has several existing bridges over busy roadways to help improve traffic flow on the roadways and facilitate pedestrian/ bicycle movement along the trail.

The proposed project is a free-span bridge crossing for the Iron Horse Regional Trail over Dublin Boulevard within the City of Dublin. Currently, the trail runs from northwest to southeast as it approaches Dublin Boulevard, which is a heavily travelled east-west roadway. The existing atgrade trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is skewed and requires awkward movement for trail users attempting to cross Dublin Boulevard. Trail users approaching Dublin Boulevard from the mailto:obaid.khan@du
blin.ca.gov
61 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

southeast are currently required to turn left and use the sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 200 feet, cross the street at the existing Scarlett Drive signalized intersection, and then turn right and use the sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 100 feet to get back to the trail (Figure 1).

The primary objective of the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project is to provide a safe crossing for trail users and facilitate improved traffic flow along Dublin Boulevard by providing a grade- separated bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists. Construction of the proposed bridge crossing would allow trail users to stay on the trail and cross over multiple lanes of automobile traffic on the proposed bridge (Figure 2) without disrupting vehicular traffic flow.

The overcrossing would require construction of touchdown landings with graduated ramps on the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Scarlett Drive right-of-way, within the westernmost portion of Don Biddle Park and on the south side of Dublin Boulevard within the existing Iron Horse Trail right-of-way. The proposed free-span bridge structure would be approximately 230 feet in length and would a minimum 17 feet of clearance over the Dublin Boulevard road surface (Figure 2). The entire Overcrossing Project length, including landings north and south of Dublin Boulevard, as well as the bridge span itself, is approximately 1,200 feet in length.

Adjacent development includes commercial and residential development along Dublin Boulevard including development of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area with parks, open space, residential, and commercial uses. The Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station is located approximately 0.25 miles south of the project area. The project would provide a gradeseparated crossing for Iron Horse Trail users accessing the BART station or heading to and from other regional locations in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard and the Specific Plan area.

The project is included as Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 to reduce emissions in the DCEIR.

Project Applicant’ s Name and Address
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
General Plan Designation and Zoning
Open Space/ Park (P)
Technical Studies Prepared Subsequent to the Dublin Specific Plan Crossing EIR The Initial Study/ Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/ SMND) presented 62 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

below relies and builds on the technical studies and analysis presented in the DCEIR document. In addition to the DCEIR technical reports and their findings which analyzed in detail the impacts of a 189-acre study area, the IS/ SMND addresses the entire area affected by the proposed Overcrossing project, including the bridge over Dublin Boulevard and its southerly landing, which are outside of the area analyzed in the DCEIR.

In addition, two additional technical studies were completed specifically for the Overcrossing Project: Biological Resources, Appendix B and Cultural Resources Appendix C analysis for the proposed Overcrossing Project. The two additional technical studies are summarized below.

Biological Resources
Based on the current development plan and schedule for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, the Don Biddle Community Park will be constructed as far west as the Scarlett Drive right-of-way and will be in use prior to initiation of the construction for the Overcrossing Project’ s foundations and ramps and the installation of the free-span bridge structure. Thus, the northerly landing of the proposed project would occur within the community park. Within this portion of the Overcrossing Project area, the Chabot Channel and associated riparian vegetation would be restored as part of development of the community park. During construction of the Overcrossing Project, the channel and any restored habitats within the park would be avoided, which is a requirement established in DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1.

Therefore, no additional study of this portion of the project area was initiated during preparation of the IS/ SMND.

The portion of the Overcrossing Project area south of Dublin Boulevard as it exists today is flanked by urban development and encompasses the Iron Horse Trail, adjacent annual grassland/ ruderal habitats, a large palm tree, and a row of small valley oak trees planted adjacent to the trail (Figure 5). Biologists conducted field surveys of the project area south of Dublin Boulevard in February, March, June, and August of 2018, to evaluate the potential for this portion of the project area to support protected plant and animal species. Field surveys were conducted during the appropriate period during which species could be observed if they were present in the project area. A summary of the individual species with the potential to occur in the project area and the conclusion of the analysis based on biologist’ s field surveys is included in Appendix A. In addition, biologists conducted a formal wetland delineation which is included as Appendix B. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a site visit, concurred with the findings of the formal delineation report, and issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination ( Figure 6).

Cultural Resources
No cultural resources are located within the Overcrossing Project area. There were no Cultural Resources or Tribal Cultural Resources identified within the portion of the project area where it overlaps the community park on the north side of Dublin Boulevard, according to the DCEIR. 63 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Also, as stated above, the community park will be in operation prior to construction of the proposed Overcrossing Project. A site survey and archival research for the project area south of Dublin Boulevard did not result in identification of any historic resources. Cultural Resource site survey, archival research and tribal consultation undertaken for the proposed project has been summarized and is included in Appendix C.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Subsequent to certification of the DCEIR, AB 52 was adopted, requiring CEQA Lead Agencies to address potential effects of proposed projects upon Tribal Cultural Resources. A tribal cultural resource is defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

For the Overcrossing Project, the City of Dublin initiated communication with local Native American Tribes in June 2018 to request knowledge or documentation pertaining to tribal resources in the project area. This communication is summarized in Appendix C and includes a letter requesting that a Native American Monitor be present during construction. The Overcrossing Project accommodates this request by including in the Project Description the commitment to retain a Native American Monitor to be present during any construction activity that would result in ground disturbance such as grading, or excavation needed to create foundations and footings.

Project Description
The Overcrossing Project consists of a free-span bridge that would create a grade- separated crossing of Dublin Boulevard where it intersects the Iron Horse Regional Trail within the City of Dublin. Currently, the Trail runs from northwest to southeast as it approaches Dublin Boulevard, which is a heavily traveled east-west roadway. The existing at-grade trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is skewed. Trail users approaching Dublin Boulevard from the southeast are currently required to turn left and use the sidewalk along the south side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 200 feet, cross the street at the existing Scarlett Drive signalized intersection, 64 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

and then turn right and use the sidewalk along the north side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 100 feet to get back to the Trail (Figure 1).

The Overcrossing Project would permit trail users to cross over multiple lanes of automobile traffic on Dublin Boulevard, while shortening the delay time at the Scarlet Drive intersection for vehicles travelling along Dublin Boulevard ( Figure 2). The Overcrossing Project would require construction of foundation footings to support the free-span bridge structure and the ramps into Don Biddle Community Park on the north side of Dublin Boulevard and along the south side of Dublin Boulevard, connecting to the existing at-grade trail to the north and south of Dublin Boulevard. The approximately 230-foot long free-span overcrossing structure would be fabricated off-site and would be delivered to the project site when it is ready to be installed.

The bridge structure, when installed, would provide a minimum of 17 feet of vertical clearance from the Dublin Boulevard road surface (Figure 2). The total length of the Overcrossing Project is approximately 1,200 feet.

Construction Program
The proposed Overcrossing Project would be constructed over a period of approximately 180 working days. All construction and staging will be accommodated within the project area (Figure 3) and perimeter fencing will be established around construction areas to prevent encroachment into adjacent areas and to prevent trail users from coming into direct contact with construction activities. The free-span bridge structure will be fabricated off-site at a manufacturing facility and delivered to the project area for assembly and placement. Assembly of the free-span superstructure will take approximately one week and placement of the structure over Dublin Boulevard will be scheduled to occur one day during non-peak traffic hours over night. Installation of the bridge will adhere to the traffic/ transportation mitigation measures identified in the DCEIR which established requirements for construction vehicles and anticipated the potential need to reduce travel lanes or temporarily close Dublin Boulevard (if needed).

A Native American Monitor will be present on the site during construction any time grading or excavation or ground disturbance occurs as a result of requests pertaining to Tribal Cultural Resources as described in AB 52 and summarized above and summarized in more detail in the Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix C).

Trail use will be maintained at all times during construction and bridge installation.

However, construction may require short-term trail re-routing within the project area to accommodate specific construction tasks north and south of Dublin Boulevard so that the trail remains open at all times during project construction. All temporary trail rerouting will occur within the existing right-of-way for the trail, which was previously disturbed as part of trail construction. The impacts of such temporary rerouting are addressed in this document as part of the overall construction of the proposed Overcrossing Project.

All construction and staging will be accommodated within the project area and perimeter fencing will be established around construction areas to prevent trail users from coming 65 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

into contact with construction activities.

Site Access and Circulation
During construction of the foundations and footings and during installation of the free-span bridge structure all construction crews and equipment will gain access to the project area directly from Dublin Boulevard.

Independent Utility of the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project The proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing over Dublin Boulevard was described in the City of Dublin’ s Iron Horse Trail Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) published in 2017 and approved by the City Council on November 7, 2017. The Feasibility Study identified a series of potential improvements to the Iron Horse Trail intended to increase trail access for users of all ages and abilities, and to connect more communities to the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station. The Feasibility Study focused on access to the multi-use trail near BART stations and explored options for improving trail crossings at Dougherty and Dublin Boulevard.

Because of the existing need to (1) provide a safe crossing for the trail over Dublin Boulevard for pedestrian/ bicycle traffic, (2) facilitate vehicular movement along Dublin Boulevard, and (3) implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 from the DCEIR, the City of Dublin would pursue a bridge crossing for the trail over Dublin Boulevard even if none of the other trail improvements identified in the Feasibility Study were to be implemented. The proposed Iron Horse Trail bridge crossing therefore has independent utility and is analyzed under CEQA as a separate and distinct project from other potential trail improvements identified in the 2017 Feasibility Study.
66 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Determination
On the basis of this initial study which reflects the independent judgment of the City of Dublin:

I find that the proposed project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the environment other than those disclosed in the certified Dublin Crossing Environmental Impact Report, nor will any of the significant environmental effects disclosed in that document be substantially more severe as the result of the proposed project. Because the proposed project will be subject to the mitigation measures set forth in the Dublin Crossing Environmental Impact Report, a SUPPLEMENTAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

CITY OF DUBLIN
Obaid Khan Date
67 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Environmental Checklist
The checklist for the Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing focuses on the following key questions:

Will the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing result in new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR? Will the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing introduce mitigation measures that were previously found to be infeasible in the Dublin Crossing EIR or mitigation measures that the Dublin Crossing project proponents declined to implement?
Will the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing implement mitigation measures that would avoid new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those disclosed in the Dublin Crossing EIR? The answers to these three questions encompass all of the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) and will be used in the Checklist for the Iron Horse Trail Bridge Crossing as illustrated below. If any of the boxes in either column (1) or (2), below, are checked, a Subsequent or supplemental EIR would be required. If any of the boxes in column (3) are checked, a Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration would be prepared. Finally, if only the boxes in Column 4 are checked, a Supplemental Mitigation Negative Declaration would be prepared if the project were subject to mitigation measures from the previous EIR. A Subsequent Negative Declaration would be prepared if the proposed project would not be subject to mitigation from the previous EIR.
68 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Aesthetics
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

1. AESTHETICS — Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Existing Setting
The Overcrossing Project is located north of the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART Station, along the Iron Horse Trail right-of-way where it intersects with Dublin Boulevard in the City of Dublin.

Surrounding development along Dublin Boulevard is mixed-use, primarily commercial, with new residences located directly adjacent to the east. A community park is being constructed along the north side of Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail as described and addressed in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR.

Trail users in the project area primarily see urban development and transportation infrastructure in the foreground, with distant views of Pleasanton Ridge to the west, and distant views of Altamont Pass and undeveloped hills to the east when crossing Dublin Boulevard. Even though motorists traveling along Dublin Boulevard in the vicinity of the project area currently see adjacent urban development in the immediate view, distant views of 69 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

undeveloped hills to the east are afforded from the roadway, and distant views of undeveloped lands along Pleasanton Ridge are visible to motorists traveling west on Dublin Boulevard.

Regulatory Framework
A scenic vista is a view that possesses visual and aesthetic qualities of high value to the community. Scenic vistas can provide views of natural features or significant structures and buildings. The term “ vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area.

I-680 is designated as a State Scenic Highway. According to the State Scenic Highway website, the scenic aspects of the corridor feature the rolling wooded hills of the Contra Costa range contrasted with the flat Sunol Valley ringed by distance hills to the north and east. While not officially listed, I-580 is eligible for listing as a State Scenic Highway.

The City of Dublin General Plan indicates that I-580, I-680, and Dougherty Road were designated scenic routes by Alameda County in 1966. These are primary routes from which people traveling through Dublin gain their impression of the City. Section 5.6, Implementing Policy B in the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design review be conducted for all projects visible from a designated scenic route. Because a portion of the project area may be visible from I580, the City of Dublin General Plan requires that design review be conducted for all projects visible from a designated scenic route. In addition, the DCEIR states that the design guidelines set forth in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan “ apply to all new construction within the Specific Plan area.” Therefore, the proposed Overcrossing project will be subject to the City’s design review process.

Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Findings
The DCEIR concluded that buildout of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts to aesthetic resources and would not substantially increase light and glare.

The analysis leading to this conclusion was based on an compliance with the DCSP and its provisions for design guidelines associated with proposed development.

Design Guidelines included in the DCSP that would apply to the Overcrossing Project include the following:

Adequate lighting should be provided throughout the site to create a safe and nonthreatening environment. The scale, materials, colors, and design detail of light posts and fixtures should reflect the desired character of Dublin Crossing and the architectural style of the surrounding buildings. Light posts should be appropriately scaled to pedestrians near sidewalks and other areas of pedestrian circulation. Extremely tall light posts and fixtures should be avoided.
70 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Lighting fixtures should be compatible with the architectural style and character of the building. The color, size, placement, and number of fixtures should enhance the overall design and character of the building and site.

Energy efficient, low voltage lighting is encouraged.

Exterior lighting should be unobtrusive and not cause glare or spillover into neighboring properties, and lighting fixtures should direct illumination downward to minimize light pollution impacts. Up-lighting, spot-lighting, and decorative color lighting may be appropriate for prominent buildings and features, but illumination should not adversely impact neighboring properties with sensitive uses, such as residential.

If necessary, security lighting fixtures should be hooded, recessed, and/ or located in such a manner to only illuminate the intended area.

Pedestrian scale fixtures are encouraged and should shine downward and emit a warm light along walkways.

All building entrances, including alleys, plazas, drive isles, paseos, walkways, common areas, and others should be well lit.

Lighting sources should be concealed from view to prevent glare and promote lighting uniformity.

Illuminated bollards or pathway lights should be integrated into the pedestrian circulation system when other lighting is not provided.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Since the project area and its immediate surroundings do not currently include views of monuments, or unique buildings that would be classified as scenic resources there would be no adverse effects to scenic resources and no new or significant impacts as a result of construction and operation of the overcrossing.

Trail users and motorists within the project area and vicinity are afforded distant views of undeveloped hills and ridgelines particularly when positioned within the travel lanes of Dublin Boulevard. Once constructed, the free-span bridge overcrossing would be experienced by motorists as a momentary obstruction of the distant views of undeveloped hills or ridgelines afforded from the roadway when traveling along Dublin Boulevard ( see below). However, compared to existing conditions, trail users would have expanded views of undeveloped hills and ridgelines afforded by the elevation of the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing structure. 71 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
There are no scenic resources identified in the project area. The southeast portion of the project area may be momentarily visible to motorists traveling along I-580 which is a designated scenic route. The overcrossing structure would be consistent with the urban character of the existing views from the highway and would not obstruct views or substantially damage scenic resources viewed from the scenic route.
c) Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The urban nature of the surroundings and the proximity of the proposed Overcrossing project to BART and the community park make this project and its design consistent with the existing visual character of the site and surrounding area. The visual character of the site within the developed urban environment along Dublin Boulevard would not be substantially changed by construction and operation of the overcrossing. In addition, because the Overcrossing Project is designed to comply with all applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would result. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The DCEIR’ s analysis of aesthetics is based on the urban design provisions of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. Because the proposed Overcrossing Project is subject to the mitigation measures set forth in the DCEIR, it is also subject to the project design features of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan that were used in the analyses of the DCEIR. As noted in the Regulatory Framework section, above, the Overcrossing Project would be required to comply with design guidelines included in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan by demonstrating the proposed exterior lighting is non-intrusive while still providing an adequate amount of light. To ensure traffic safety, lighting on bridge structure and bridge approaches would be designed so as not to shine onto Dublin Boulevard motorists. Compliance with these design guidelines would ensure that the proposed Overcrossing Project does not introduce substantial light and glare which would pose a hazard or nuisance. Therefore, the Overcrossing Project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts.
72 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Agricultural and Forestry Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4256), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104( g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
73 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Existing Setting
The project area is not being utilized for agricultural uses and is designated as “ Other Land” on the Alameda County Important Farmland Map that is published by the California Department of Conservation ( DOC). The narrow corridor within the project area is not suitable for agricultural purposes. In addition, the project area does not contain any forest resources as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Dublin Crossing EIR Findings
Because the area and adjacent lands were not being utilized for agricultural uses, nor were any lands in the area mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, the DCEIR concluded that no impacts in relation to agricultural resources would result. In addition, because Dublin Crossing was located within an urban setting with no forest resources within or adjacent to the project area, the DCEIR concluded that no impacts in relation to agricultural resources would result.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance ( Farmland) to nonagricultural use? No lands mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance existing within or adjacent to the proposed Overcrossing projects. No impacts will therefore result.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The project site for the proposed trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is not zoned or suitable for agricultural use and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. No impacts will therefore result. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland zoned Timberland? The project site for the proposed trail crossing of Dublin Boulevard is not zoned or suitable for use as forest or timberland. No impacts will therefore result. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? See Response c), above.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Because the project site and adjacent lands are within an urban setting and not suitable for agricultural or forest use, no impacts will result.
74 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Air Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

3. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the Bay Area Clean
Air Plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Existing Setting
The City of Dublin is located in eastern Alameda County, which is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ( hereinafter “ Basin”). The Basin includes San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and Marin counties, and forms a climatological sub-region. This climatological sub-region stretches from Richmond to San Leandro, bounded to the west by the San Francisco Bay and to the east by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills have a ridgeline height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant barrier to air flow. In this area, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds. 75 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Criteria Air Pollutants
Local ambient air quality is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the State. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above-ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations.

Ozone
Ozone (O3) occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth' s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric ( the "good" O3) layer extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun' s harmful ultraviolet rays (UV-B).

What is referred to as “ Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxide (NOx), and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOx are O3 precursors. VOCs and NOx are emitted from various sources throughout the area. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide ( CO) is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon- based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. At high concentrations, CO can reduce the oxygen- carrying capacity of the blood and cause headaches, dizziness, unconsciousness, and death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
NOx’ s are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), often used interchangeably with NOx, is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at high levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations).

NOx can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza.
76 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Coarse Particulate Matter
Coarse particulate matter (PM10) refers to suspended particulate matter (PM) which is smaller than 10 microns. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility.

In addition, these particulates penetrate the lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract.

Fine Particulate Matter
Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter, both Federal and State standards have been created for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The impacts of fine particulate matter primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with preexisting cardiopulmonary disease.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, pungent gas belonging to the family of sulfur oxide (SOx) gases, formed primarily by combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels (primarily coal and oil), and during metal smelting and other industrial processes. SO2 is often used interchangeably with SOx. The major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations of SOx are effects on breathing, respiratory illness, diminishment of pulmonary defenses, and aggravation of existing cardiovascular disease. Emissions of SOx also can damage the foliage of trees and agricultural crops. Together, SOx and NOx are the major precursors to acid rain, which is associated with the acidification of lakes and streams, and the accelerated corrosion of buildings and public monuments.

Toxic Air Contaminants
According to Section 39655 of the California Health and Safety Code, a TAC is "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health." In addition, substances that have been listed as federal hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs) pursuant to Section 7412 of Title 42 of the United States Code are TACs under the State' s air toxics program pursuant to Section 39657 (b) of the California Health and Safety Code.

TACs of particular concern for posing health risks in California are acetaldehyde, benzene, 1-3 butadiene, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, perchlorethylene, and diesel particulate matter. 77 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Reactive Organic Gases and Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs are organic chemical compounds with sufficiently high vapor pressure such that they will tend to vaporize and enter ambient air under standard conditions. A wide range of carbonbased molecules, such as aldehydes, ketones, and hydrocarbons are VOCs. Hydrocarbons are organic gases, liquids, or solids that are formed solely of hydrogen and carbon. A subset of VOCs is reactive in the context of O3 formation at urban (and possibly regional) scales. Reactive Organic Gases ( ROGs) are defined to be those VOCs that are regulated because they lead to O3 formation. Both ROGs and VOCs can be emitted from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon- based fuels. The major sources of VOCs are combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and oil-fueled power plants; other common sources are petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint (via evaporation).

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations are referred to as sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

Odors
Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm; however, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and agencies. Facilities commonly known to produce odors include wastewater treatment facilities, chemical manufacturing, painting/ coating operations, feed lots/ dairies, composting facilities, landfills, and transfer stations. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, and no requirements for their control are included in State and Federal air quality regulations.

The project does not propose uses identified by the BAAQMD as sources of odors.

Regulatory Setting
Environmental Protection Agency
The principal air quality regulatory mechanism on the Federal level is the Clean Air Act (FCAA) and, in particular, the 1990 amendments to the FCAA and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) that it establishes. These standards identify levels of air quality for “criteria” pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare.

The criteria pollutants are O3, CO, NO2 ( a form of NOx), SO2 ( a form of SOx), PM10, PM2.5, and lead (Pb); refer to DCEIR Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has regulatory and enforcement jurisdiction over emission sources beyond State waters (outer continental shelf) and those that are under the 78 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

exclusive authority of the Federal government, such as aircraft, locomotives, and interstate trucking.

California Air Resources Board
CARB administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. These standards, included with the NAAQS in DCEIR Table 3.2-2: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS.

In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is responsible for regulating stationary, indirect, and area sources of pollution within the Basin. The BAAQMD is one out of 35 air quality management districts that have prepared Air Quality Management Plans ( AQMPs) to accomplish the 5 percent annual reduction goal required by the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The following notes efforts by the BAAQMD to address O3 and O3 precursors through the implementation of the Ozone Strategy and Clean Air Plan.
2005 Ozone Strategy
The BAAQMD prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, which was adopted on January 4, 2006, and describes how the Basin will fulfill CCAA planning requirements for the State 1-hour O3 standard and transport mitigation requirements through the proposed control strategy. The 2005 Ozone Strategy explains how the BAAQMD plans to achieve these goals with regard to O3, and also discusses related air quality issues of interest, including the public involvement process, climate change, fine particulate matter, the BAAQMD’ s Community Air Risk Evaluation CARE) program, local benefits of O3 control measures, the environmental review process, national O3 standards, and photochemical modeling. The 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to achieve the following:

Implement all feasible measures to reduce O3; provide a control strategy to reduce O3, particulate matter, TACs, and greenhouse gases ( GHGs) in a single, integrated plan; Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 time-frame.

The BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Basin. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide BAAQMD- recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality and GHG 79 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. In addition to providing new thresholds for GHG emissions, the 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide updated significance thresholds for criteria pollutants and supersede the BAAQMD’ s previous CEQA guidance titled BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans ( 1999).

If the project is in excess of the established plan level thresholds a significant air quality impact would occur.

State Air Toxics Program
TACs are another group of pollutants of concern in California. There are hundreds of different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle engine exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset spill conditions. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

Attainment Status
The USEPA has classified air basins as being in “attainment,” “ nonattainment,” or “unclassified” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation.

The project area is located within a portion of the Bay Area that is considered in attainment or unclassified for most of the criteria pollutants for State and federal considerations, except for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Under federal regulations the area is designated an unclassified/ attainment area for PM10 standards ( see Table 1 below).

Table 1. San Francisco Bay Air Basin Attainment Statusa Pollutant State Federal
Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 8 hour Attainment Attainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO) –1 hour Attainment Attainment
Ozone (O3) – 8 hour Non-attainment Non-Attainment
Ozone (O3) – 1 hour Non-attainment N/Ab
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – 1 hour Attainment Unclassified Nitrogen Dioxide – Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 24 hour Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – 1 hour Attainment Attainment
80 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Pollutant State Federal
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) – Annual Arithmetic
Mean -- Attainment
Particulate Matter (PM10) – Annual Arithmetic
Mean Non-Attainment --
Particulate Matter (PM10) – 24 hour Non-Attainment Unclassified Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Annual Arithmetic Mean Non- attainment Attainment Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – 24 hour -- Non-attainment
Sulfates – 24 hour Attainment --
Lead – Calendar Quarter -- Attainment
Lead – 30 Day Average -- Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide – 1 hour Unclassified --
Vinyl Chloride (Chloroethene) – 24 hour -- --
Visibility Reducing Particulatesc Unclassified --
Notes: N/ A – Not Applicable/ No Standard Exists
a
In order for an area to meet a particular standard, all time tests ofthe applicable standard must be met. Separate designations are not made for each time component of the standard. For instance, an area might meet the annual criteria of the State PM10 standard but not the 24-hour requirement. In that case, the area fails to meet the standard and would be designated nonattainment for the State PM10 standard. Thus, a single designation is made for each State and Federal standard based on whether or not the area meets all the aspects of the standard. b
The Federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005 in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone nonattainment Early Action Compact ( EAC) areas.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, violate air quality standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Short-Term Construction Emissions
The DCEIR concludes that short-term air quality impacts associated with construction activities such as grading, operation of equipment would occur (Impact 3.2-1), potentially exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, construction emissions were determined to have a significant unavoidable impact.

Because of the variable nature of construction activities on a day-to-day basis and because construction emissions are measured on a pounds-per-day basis, the DCEIR did not quantify emissions of air pollutants. The greatest source of air pollutant emissions during construction of a development as large as the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would occur during site grading when heavy, diesel-fueled construction equipment is used in large numbers and fugitive dust is generated from large-scale earthmoving activities (PM10 and PM2.5)). 81 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Site grading and excavation activities associated with the proposed Overcrossing project would be a temporary source of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions, as well as emissions from construction equipment. The short-term construction impacts of Overcrossing Project would be much less than for the DCSP, and would not cause the significant construction impacts of the DCSP to be substantially more severe than was disclosed in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR for the following reasons:

Because the 2-acre Overcrossing Project area is very small relative to the overall Dublin Crossing Specific Plan’ s 189-acre area, the area subject to earth moving activities on a daily basis would be far smaller for the Overcrossing Project with substantially fewer emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 than would occur for grading of the Specific Plan area.

Whereas large numbers of heavy-duty equipment would be needed to grade the Specific Plan area, the Overcrossing Project would not require heavy-duty earth moving equipment and would be graded using smaller-scale equipment (e.g., bobcats and back hoes), resulting in lower daily emissions.

Fewer construction workers would be employed for construction of the Overcrossing Project than for development of the Specific Plan, reducing daily emissions from construction worker travel.

Construction of the Overcrossing Project would not overlap the major grading operations for the DCSP. Daily construction- related air pollutant emissions would therefore not add to the peak construction emissions resulting from the DCSP.

The Overcrossing Project would be required to implement the mitigation measures taken set forth in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR to reduce construction- related air pollutant emissions:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following basic construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:

All exposed surfaces ( e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
82 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes ( as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [ CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’ s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’ s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1b. Additional Short-Term Construction Best Management. Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Public Works Director and the Building Official shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications stipulate that the following additional construction mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction projects:

All excavation, grading, and/ or demolition activities shall be suspended when winds instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph.

Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction.

Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

The applicant shall reduce exhaust emissions during construction and, in particular, emissions of NOx, when using construction equipment and vehicles by implementing the following measures:
o Require the use of diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/ export) that meet EPA 2007 model year NOX emissions requirements o The following note shall be included on all grading plans: During project construction, all internal combustion engines/ construction, equipment operating 83 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

on the project area shall meet EPA-Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher according to the following:

January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower ( hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.

Post-January 1, 2015: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available.

Alternatively, construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o The contractor and applicant, if the applicant’ s equipment is used, shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned and regularly serviced to minimize exhaust emissions.
o Utilize existing power sources ( i.e., power poles) when available. This measure would minimize the use of higher polluting gas or diesel generators. o Construction- related equipment, including heavy- duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes.

Use low VOC ( i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements ( i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).

Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.

Long-Term Operational Emissions – Clean Air Plan Consistency The DCEIR concluded that buildout of the DCSP is consistent with population growth assumptions in the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, is anticipated to result in reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) compared to population growth and is consistent with several of the Clean Air Plan’s Control Measures. Operation of the Overcrossing Project would not increase population or vehicle miles traveled. The Overcrossing project facilitates non-motorized travel and would not result in additional long-term emissions or any new or substantially more significant impacts.
84 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Energy Source Emissions
The DCEIR concludes that energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas (non-hearth) usage including space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Ongoing operations of Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing project would involve lighting of the bridge crossing ( no changes are proposed in relation to trail lighting. The energy consumption and resulting air pollutant emissions of such lighting would be extremely small in relation to the energy demands of the entire Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area. As shown in Table 3.2-6 of the DCEIR, energy use is not a major source of air pollutant emissions ( 1.2 to 11.0 percent of emissions, depending on pollutant). The electrical consumption associated with bridge lighting would not therefore result in the significant unavoidable operational air pollutant emissions impacts disclosed in the DCEIR being substantially more severe.

Mobile Source Emissions
Ongoing operation of the Overcrossing Project would involve pedestrians and bicyclist using the bridge crossing and would not result in any mobile source emissions. By implementing DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.12-3 requiring construction of a bridge crossing for the Iron Horse Trail over Dublin Boulevard, the Overcrossing Project would reduce vehicular delay along Dublin Boulevard and thereby result in a slight decrease in mobile source emissions. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality? The DCEIR concluded that the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would result in a significant unavoidable impact from both construction-related and long-term operational emissions, and the Specific Plan’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts would therefore be considered to be cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, the Overcrossing Project would result in only very minor increases of criteria pollutants during construction and ongoing operations. The Overcrossing Project would also result in a slight decrease in mobile source emissions by reducing vehicular delay along Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed Overcrossing Project would not result in the cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts disclosed in the DCEIR being substantially more severe.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The BAAQMD requires that projects be analyzed for the potential to cause localized CO hotspots. Per the BAAQMD CO screening guidelines, a project would have CO impacts if the following were to occur:

Project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at level of service LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F. 85 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more.

Project would contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm for one hour.

The analysis conducted in the DCEIR concluded that CO concentrations at area intersections would be no greater than 16 percent of the applicable 1-hour standard for CO and no greater than 24.9 percent of the applicable 8-hour standard with development of the entire Dublin Crossing Specific Plan. Recognizing that traffic and resulting CO emissions from the proposed Overcrossing Project would be far less than for the Specific Plan project, the Overcrossing Project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact compared to the impacts disclosed in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction of the proposed project would allow some uses which generate airborne odors, such as during application of coatings to the bridge structure, which could be considered to generate odors; however, limited exposure and compliance with applicable regulatory requirements during construction will ensure that any impact is less than significant. These potential odors generated during construction would be short-term, intermittent and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact. 86 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Biological Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
Found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special- status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede
the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with City of Dublin Tree
Regulations protecting biological
resources?
87 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
Found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Study Methods and Data Sources
Biologists Julia King and Patricia Berryhill from Metis Environmental Group conducted reconnaissance- level surveys of the project area on February 22, March 6, and August 18, 2018 and on September 12, 2019. In addition, a search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB) was conducted and the following technical reports prepared for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR were reviewed:

Cardno Entrix March 6, 2012, reconnaissance- level survey.

Jones & Stokes 1995, special- status plant and animal surveys for Camp Parks.

Jones & Stokes 2006, surveys for vernal pool invertebrates, California red-legged frog, burrowing owls, San Joaquin kit foxes, and other sensitive species including raptors and loggerhead shrikes.

Steele, K., and D. Petersen. 2005. Floristic survey of Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Counties, California. August.

Booz Allen Hamilton. 2004. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Biological Field Surveys.

Prepared for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Directorate of Public Works. March 2004. 98 pp + Appendices.

Appendix B includes a formal wetland delineation that was prepared for the portion of the project area located south of Dublin Boulevard. The delineation was submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Staff from the Corps of Engineers have visited the site and a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination has been issued (Figure 6). 88 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Plant Communities and Habitats
North of Dublin Boulevard, the project area is within the footprint of a community park being developed with turf and landscape plantings. Within the park area, the Chabot Channel and adjacent riparian habitats are subject to ecological restoration treatments during park development. The channel bisects the project area. Ecological restoration efforts are on-going and will result in riparian habitat directly adjacent on both sides of the channel and will include oaks, willows and native grasses adjacent to Chabot Channel. Restoration activities that would occur within the channel and riparian areas are addressed in the DCEIR and the restoration activities would comply with DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-1: Prepare and Implement a Wetland Mitigation Plan.

Prior to commencing any activities that would impact wetlands or waters habitat, the project applicant shall obtain all required public agency permits and shall prepare a wetland mitigation plan that ensures no-net-loss of wetland and waters habitat and is approved by the City and applicable resource agencies. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures for avoidance, minimization, and compensation for wetland impacts. Avoidance and minimization measures may include the designation of buffers around wetland features to be avoided, or project design measures, such as free-span bridges. Compensation measures shall include the preservation and/ or creation of wetland or waters. The final mitigation ratios (the amount of wetlands and waters created or preserved compared to the amount impacted) shall be determined by the applicable resource agencies and the City. The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following:

Descriptions of the wetland types, and their expected functions and values; Performance standards and monitoring protocol to ensure the success of the mitigation wetlands over a period to be determined by the resource agencies; Engineering plans showing the location, size and configuration of wetlands to be created or restored;
An implementation schedule showing that construction or preservation of mitigation areas shall commence prior to or concurrently with the initiation of construction; and
A description of legal protection measures for the preserved wetlands ( i.e., dedication of fee title, conservation easement, and/ or an endowment held by an approved conservation organization, government agency or mitigation bank).

South of Dublin Boulevard the following habitats were identified during field surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019:

Non-Native Grassland and Ruderal Vegetation. This habitat type occurs over the majority of the southerly portion of the project area on both sides of the paved trail. This habitat is 89 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

dominated by common invasive weed species such as rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), winter vetch (Vicia sativa), and prickly oxtongue ( Helminthotheca echioides). Landscape bark is spread directly adjacent to the edge of the paved Iron Horse Trail.

Oak Trees. A row of 10- to 15-foot tall valley oak (Quercus lobata) trees occurs along the southwest edge of the Iron Horse Trail, extending south from Dublin Boulevard. These trees are all less than 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at approximately four feet above the ground. A single ornamental palm tree occurs on the northeastern side of the Iron Horse Trail levee near the concrete retaining walls associated with the residential development to the east.

Seasonal Wetlands. Although there are no seasonal wetland features in the project area, biologists mapped seasonal wetlands adjacent to the Iron Horse Trail south of Dublin Boulevard. These wetland areas are shown in the Wetland Delineation provided in Appendix B and are populated with annual herbaceous vegetation species typically found within ephemeral depressions in California. With a slightly alkaline soil underlying the area, the wetland vegetation skews toward alkali tolerant plants species. Saltgrass ( Distichlis spicata), a dominant perennial species within the study area and alkali heath (Frankenia salina), a less common subshrub measuring less than 10 inches high, were observed at the wetland data points. Other species observed included spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), creeping wild rye (Lemus tritichoides), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monospelinensis), and prickly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides).

Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur in the Project Area Plant species and animal species afforded protections under State and Federal laws and are referred to as having “ Special Status.” Appendix A includes a summary evaluation of special status species that could occur in the project area based on direct observation of existing conditions observed in the field, findings in the DCEIR, and a query of the CNDDB. Each of the species or groups of species discussed below is also addressed in the DCEIR and in Appendix C of the DCEIR.

Western Burrowing Owl. The western burrowing owl is a ground- nesting owl species that is known from the DCSP area and annual grassland habitats addressed in the DCEIR. The project area north of Dublin Boulevard developed as a community park would not support burrowing owls. However, the non-native annual grassland and ruderal vegetation within the project area located south of Dublin Boulevard is suitable for burrowing owls. Burrowing owls were not observed in the project area during field surveys conducted in February, March and August 2018.

Special Status Plants. Congdon’ s tarplant has the potential to occur in the project area south of Dublin Boulevard. This Special Status plant species was also found near the BART facility to the 90 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

south of the project area in 2000 but it was not observed in the project area during field surveys conducted in August of 2018 and September 2019.

Special Status Habitats in the Project Area
Special status habitats in the project area include the Chabot Channel and the associated riparian habitat being restored adjacent to the channel within the Don Biddle community park north of Dublin Boulevard.

The oak trees located in the project area south of Dublin Boulevard do not meet the definition of Heritage Trees, as described in Section 5.60 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code and are not considered to be special status species.

Regulatory Setting
Regulations that apply to individual species and habitats in the project area are summarized below.

Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Services ( USFWS) under Section 7(a)(2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit.

The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and " endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California- listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the California Natural Diversity Database, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California' s rarest plants, animals, and natural communities.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and 91 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The USFWS administers the MBTA. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC).

All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA ( 16 United States Code [ USC], section 703, et seq.) and California statute (FGC section 3503.5). The golden eagle and bald eagle are also afforded additional protection under the Eagle Protection Act, amended in 1973 (16 USC, section 669, et seq.).

Waters of the United States. The United States Army Corp of Engineers regulates “ Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology.

Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “ other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high-water mark, and herein referred to as non-wetland waters.

Non-wetland waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S. generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA.

Waters of the State. The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404.

Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit or fall under other federal jurisdiction and have the potential to impact Waters of the State are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a proposed project does not require a federal permit but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements.

Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan. The Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) is a document which is intended help planners protect 92 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

endangered species by working with landowners to implement long term conservation stewardship to offset potential impacts associated with urban and agricultural development.

The project area does not fall within the boundaries of the EACCS.

Impacts Evaluation
The following mitigation measures established in the DCEIR would apply to the Overcrossing Project:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a: Conduct a Floristic Survey and Consult with CDFG and USFWS if State or Federally Listed Plants are Found and Comply with Incidental Take Permits. The project applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct rare plant surveys within the construction zone for Congdon’ s tarplant or other species with potential habitat within the project area during the appropriate time of year in accordance with agency protocols. These plant surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the 2009 California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and Wildlife Service rare plant survey protocols. The results of the survey shall be summarized in a report and submitted to CDFW and USFWS and would be valid for two years. If no special-status plants are located during the surveys, no further mitigation measures would be required. If any federal or state plant species are found during the rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and USFWS to obtain incidental take permits under Section 2081 of the CESA and either Section 7 or 10 of the FESA. Consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA could occur as part of the CWA Section 404 permit process as part of the wetland mitigation, described under Mitigation Measure MM 3.3-1.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-2b: Develop and Implement Mitigation in Consultation with CDFW if Other Special Status Plant Species Are Found. If special- status plant species ( excluding federal or state listed plants) are found during the rare plant surveys, the project applicant shall notify the CDFW. A mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with and approved by the CDFW and the City prior to the commencement of any activities that would impact any special status plants. The mitigation plan shall include measures such as transplanting plants, collecting seed or clippings and replanting species in an on-site location, if feasible or other location approved by Department of Fish and Game.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3a: Conduct a Burrowing Owl Survey and Impact Assessment. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a California burrowing owls surveys and impact assessment following the 2012 California Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation ( CDFW 2012) or as updated at the time of the implementation of the proposed project. The report( s) shall be submitted to California Department of Fish and Game as indicated in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. If it is determined that project activities may result in impacts to 93 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

nesting, occupied, and satellite burrows and/ or burrowing owl habitat, the project applicant shall consult with the CDFW and develop a detailed mitigation plan such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows, and burrowing owl impacted are replaced. The mitigation plan shall be based on the requirements set forth in Appendix A of the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3b: Implement Avoidance Measures. If California burrowing owl are located within the project area and direct impacts can be avoided, the project applicant shall implement the following avoidance measures during all phases of construction to reduce or eliminate potential impacts to California burrowing owls.

Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February through 31 August.

Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls.

Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development.

Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’ s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.

Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows.

Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting owls, designated use areas).

Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February.

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3-3c: Conduct Burrow Exclusion. In the event that California burrowing owls are located within the project area, the project applicant shall conduct a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan. If avoidance of burrowing owl or their burrows is not possible, the project applicant in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan as indicated and following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report. Monitoring of the excluded owls shall be carried out as per the California Department of Fish and Game 2012 Staff Report. Mitigation for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied, and satellite burrow and/ or burrowing owls shall be developed based on the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
94 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

a) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
During seasonal surveys of the project area South of Dublin Boulevard in February, March and August of 2018 and in September 2019 there were no burrowing owls observed. However, should the species colonize the annual grassland/ ruderal habitat in the project area in the interim period between when the project is approved and when construction is initiated, Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 from the DCEIR would be implemented, reducing the impact to a level that is less than significant.

Conclusion. Because the same types of impacts to special status species that were analyzed for the DCEIR would occur as part of the Overcrossing Project and the same mitigation measures will be implemented, a new or substantially more severe significant impact would be avoided with implementation of DCEIR in Mitigation Measure 3.3-2a and 3.3-2b, and 3.3-3a-c, above. b) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? North of Dublin Boulevard, the project area includes a Community Park within which the Chabot Channel and associated riparian habitat restoration adjacent to the channel. The channel and riparian within Community Park are considered to be sensitive habitat types and the Overcrossing Project is intended to be designed and constructed to entirely avoid these habitats. The graduated ramp structure to connect the free-span bridge with at grade elevations north of Dublin Boulevard would not require excavation or encroachment onto the sensitive restored habitats in order for construction to occur. The ramp design would span the restored Chabot Channel and adjacent restored riparian habitat. However, if the channel and vegetation could not be avoided for any reason, Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 from the DCEIR above) would apply and would reduce the impact to a level considered less than significant.

There are no sensitive natural communities or habitats within the project area south of Dublin Boulevard.

There would be no physical change and no impacts to sensitive natural communities or habitats in the project area during construction of the overcrossing structure or as a result of use of the structure.

Conclusion. As shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6, there are no wetlands in the project area.

Seasonal wetlands would not be impacted during construction and operation of the Overcrossing Project, no new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur. 95 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

c) Would the proposed project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The design of the ramps connecting the free-span bridge to the Iron Horse Trail north of Dublin Boulevard would span Chabot Channel and associated restored riparian habitat included in the Don Biddle Community Park. There are no wetlands or waters in the project area South of Dublin Boulevard. Wetlands or waters of the U.S. would not be impacted as a result of construction of foundations and footings to support the free-span bridge structure.

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Currently, terrestrial species that occur in the area may use the project area to gain access to habitats to the north and south, however doing so would require crossing Dublin Boulevard at grade or crossing I-580. With development of the Overcrossing Project terrestrial species that occur in the area would still need to cross Dublin Boulevard at grade.

The Chabot Channel and associated restored riparian habitats provide cover for localized animal movement. The design of the ramps connecting the bridge structure north of Dublin Boulevard includes spanning these habitats with no physical changes to the substrate.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact in relation to wildlife movement during construction or subsequent use of the overcrossing.

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur. e) Conflict with City of Dublin Tree Regulations protecting biological resources? The valley oak trees planted on the west side of the Iron Horse Trail do not meet the City of Dublin heritage tree ordinance definition as their size is smaller than specified in the City Code, nor were these trees planted as part of a mitigation requirement or as specified in subsections 1, 2 or 3 of Section 5.60.040 of the City of Dublin municipal code which defines heritage trees.

The valley oak trees within the project are all less than approximately 10 inches in diameter at breast height, thus not meeting the minimum size requirement in the code, which protects those trees 24 inches and greater in diameter at breast height.

The project area is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan.

Conclusion. Because no heritage trees are located within the project area and the project area is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan, no new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur.
96 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project is
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

5. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?
d) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in terms of
the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k); or
ii. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
97 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project is
Proponent now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Resources Code Section 5024. 1? In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Existing Setting
Mission records and ethnographies identify the Native Americans living in the Pleasanton area at the time of European contact in the latter half of the 18th century as members of various groups that are now referred to collectively as Ohlone. On the basis of linguistic evidence, it has been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about A.D. 500, having moved south and west from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta region.

Linguistic evidence has been interpreted to indicate that prior to about A.D. 500, speakers of the Hokan language occupied territories that included the project area until the ancestral Ohlone displaced them (Levy 1978).

Ethnographic Context
At the time of initial contact with European explorers (1772), the project area was occupied by the Ohlone, and more specifically an Ohlone triblet, known as Pelnen, of 300 to 500 who inhabited semi-permanent villages and seasonal campsites (Kroeber 1932; Levy 1978). Although ethnographic information about the Pelnen is sparse, they may have shared the resources of the former Willow Marsh, located in the low-lying area between Dublin and Pleasanton, with the nearby Seunen and Souyen Ohlone tribal groups. This marsh was an important source for seasonal foods such as migratory waterfowl and shorebirds, which provided protein-rich supplements to the typical aboriginal diet of greens, roots and bulbs, seeds, and acorns Levy 1978).
98 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

The arrival of the Spanish led to the rapid demise of native California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to eradicate the aboriginal life ways (which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone descendants). Brought into the missions, the surviving Ohlone along with former neighboring groups of Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers Cambra et al. 1996; Levy 1978; Shoup and Milliken 1999).

Project Area Records Search
A literature review and records search was conducted by Patrick Allen, Staff Archaeologist, on June 14, 2018 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) housed at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (IC File Number 17-3021). The records search area included the project area as well as an additional half-mile radius. The purpose of the records search was to identify any known cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the project area. The records search also included a review of the Office of Historic Preservation ( OHP) Archaeological Determination of Eligibility and the OHP Directory of Historic Properties Data File.

The records search indicated that no prehistoric or historical archaeological resources have been previously recorded within or within a half-mile radius of the project area. A total of 29 historical built-environment resources have been previously recorded within a half-mile radius of the project area; however, none of these resources are located within the project area.

These resources include a section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, and buildings and structures associated with the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, commonly known as Camp Parks. The section of the Southern Pacific Railroad, P-01-001783, is located less than one tenth of a mile northwest of the project area, it no longer extends through the project area.

The records search also indicated that a total of 150 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a half-mile radius of the project area (see full list in Appendix A). Of these 150 studies, 10 intersect or include portions of the project area (see Table 2).

Table 2. Previous Cultural Resource Studies within the Project Area Report
No. Year Author(s) Title
S-000727 1977 Miley Holman and
David Chavez
An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Two New Proposed
Waste Water Pipeline Routes, Livermore- Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Alameda County, California
S-016307 1994 Alison MacDougall
Cultural Resource Investigation of PG&E's Proposed Willow Pass Substation Addition, Willow Pass Tap, East Dublin BART
Dedicated Substation, and Castro Valley Substation Addition, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California
S-017993 1995
Brian Hatoff, Barb
Voss, Sharon
Waetcher, Stephen
Wee, Vance Bente
Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project
99 City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Report
No. Year Author(s) Title
S-025313 2002
Rand Herbert, Bryan
Larson, Jessica
Herrick, Amanda
Blosser, Andrew
Walters, and Eric
Johnson
Final Report: National Register of Historic Places, Inventory and Evaluation of Previously Unevaluated World War II and Cold War Era Buildings, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California
S-026071 1998 Shahira Ashkar and
Dana McGowan
Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Built Environment Inventory and Evaluation
S-026096 1981 Earth Metrics
Incorporated
Historic Property Survey Report for the Reactivation and Development Plans, Camp Parks, Pleasanton, CA
S-028826 2001 Damon Mark Haydu
A Cultural Resources Study of Portions of the Training Area and Cantonment Area Within Camp Parks (PRFTA), Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties, California
S-028835 2004 Jack Meyer and
Graham Dalldorf
Geoarchaeological Investigation in the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.

S-029314 2004 Christopher Caputo Archaeological Survey Report for Portions of the Training Area, Parks RFTA, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.

S-023385 2000 Colin I. Busby and
Stuart A. Guedon
Cultural Resources Assessment for an Extension of the Iron Horse Trail Between Dougherty Road and Dublin BART Station, City of Dublin, Alameda County ( letter report)
There are no resources listed on the OHP directory within the project area. Numerous industrial buildings and structures associated with National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA) and the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, located less than one tenth of a mile from the project area, are listed in the OHP directory.

Historic Topographic Map and Aerial Review
In addition to the records search, a review was conducted of the historical topographic maps and historic aerials that depict the project area. The Fairchild Aerial Surveys 1938 aerials (Flight C-5750) depict the project area in an undeveloped region with the Southern Pacific Railroad running northwest to southeast. The 1906 United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Pleasanton 15- minute quadrangle map also depicts the project area as undeveloped with only a few roads in the general vicinity. The 1953 USGS Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the project area atop the existing Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing the convergence of two unnamed seasonal drainages. The 1953 Dublin map also depicts numerous rectangular industrial style buildings to the north/ northwest of the project area. These buildings are likely portions of the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area which was commissioned in January of 1943 http:// www.usar.army. mil/ Commands/ US-Army-Reserve- Command- USARC/ Camp- ParksMain/ Camp-Parks/). 100
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

A review of the 1950 United States Department of Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service survey for Flight BUT-1950 shows the project area south of Camp Parks with small buildings located in between the northern edge of Highway 580 and the diagonal tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The 1961 Dublin 7.5-minute map shows the project area intersecting the Southern Pacific Railroad line and crossing an unnamed seasonal drainage. In addition, the 1961 Dublin quadrangle illustrates numerous buildings associated with NASA located to the northwest of the project area. The Cartwright Aerial Survey from 1965 (Flight CAS- 65-130) depicts the project area to the southeast of Camp Parks with the parcels directly surrounding the project area still mostly undeveloped. The 1980 photo revised Dublin topographic quadrangle map indicates that while the majority of the Dublin area has been developed by 1980, the project area remained undeveloped.

Tribal Coordination and Consultation
A request for information on sacred sites or tribal cultural resources (e.g., traditional use or gathering area, place of religious or sacred activity, etc.) within the immediate vicinity of the project area was sent to the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) on June 15, 2018 along with a request for a list of Native American tribal representatives with heritage ties to the area. The NAHC responded on June 25, 2018, stating that the Sacred Lands File search was completed with negative results, indicating no resources were known to be present within or near the project site (Appendix C). However, the NAHC did state that the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of Native American tribal cultural resources. As such, the NAHC recommended that six Native American representatives be contacted to elicit information regarding cultural resource issues related to the project.

Scoping letters were sent via email on July 12, 2018 to all six recommended Native American representatives. Since no written response had been received, follow up phone calls were placed to each representative on July 26, 2018. Ms. Perez, Northern Valley Yokut, indicated that typically railroad tracks follow traditional Native trails and as such she recommends a Native American monitor be present during ground disturbing activities. She also requested a copy of the final report. Ms. Sayers, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, indicated she has no knowledge of the area or its potential sensitivity. No other responses were received as a result of the outreach efforts. Subsequently, messages and follow up emails describing the project were sent to the contacts who were unable to be reached by phone.

Regulatory Setting
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), which is the official register of designated historic places.

The National Register is administered by the National Park Service, and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historical, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. 101
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

To be eligible for the National Register, a property must be significant under one or more of the following criteria pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 60:

A. Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting one or more of the aforementioned criteria, an eligible property must also possess historic “ integrity,” which is “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” The National Register criteria recognize seven qualities that define integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Structures, sites, buildings, districts, and objects over 50 years of age can be listed in the National Register as significant historical resources. Properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the National Register. Properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are also eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources ( described below), and as such, are considered historical resources for CEQA purposes.

The California Register of Historic Resources ( CRHR) is the official state-level list of properties, structures, districts, and objects significant at the local, state, or national level. CRHR- eligible properties are considered to be historical resources under CEQA and must have significance under at least one of the four criteria presented below. A property may be considered a historic resource if it:
1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California' s history and cultural heritage;
2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 102
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

In order to meet one or more of these criteria, a cultural resource must possess integrity to qualify for listing in the CRHR. Integrity is generally evaluated with reference to qualities including location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. A potentially eligible site must retain the integrity of the values that would make it significant.

Typically, integrity is indicated by evidence of the preservation of the contextual association of artifacts, ecofacts, and features within the archaeological matrix (Criterion 4) or the retention of the features that maintain contextual association with historical developments or personages that render them significant ( Criteria 1, 2, or 3). Evidence of the preservation of this context is typically determined by stratigraphic analysis and analysis of diagnostic artifacts and other temporal data (e.g., obsidian hydration, radiocarbon assay) to ascertain depositional integrity or by the level of preservation of historic and architectural features that associate a property with significant events, personages, or styles.

Integrity refers both to the authenticity of a property’ s historic identity, as shown by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during its historic period and to the ability of the property to convey its significance. This is often not an all-or-nothing scenario (determinations can be subjective); however, the final judgment must be based on the relationship between a property’ s features and its significance. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates a project may have a significant environmental effect if it causes " substantial adverse change" in the significance of an "historical resource" or a "unique archaeological resource" as defined or referenced in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b, c] (revised October 26, 1998). Such changes include " physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" ( CEQA Guidelines 1998 Section 15064.5 [b]).

Impacts Evaluation
a,b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or an archeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 or 15064. 5? Project Area North of Dublin Boulevard
The DCEIR identified 12 cultural resources within the DCSP area. These resources were all components of Camp Parks and as such were evaluated using the National Register of Historic Places ( NRHP) criteria. Only one of the resources, the Camp Parks entrance sign (P-01-010333), was determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP by the State Historical Preservation Office SHPO) ( October 26, 1999). As the resource was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, it is now also recommended as eligible for listing on the CRHR. The DCEIR concluded no significant impacts to historic or archaeological resources would occur with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3.4-2, 3.4-3 which are presented below.
103
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Project Area South of Dublin Boulevard
Technical review and analysis of cultural resources included in Appendix C and summarized above in the project area Records Search section concluded that there are no cultural resources in the project area south of Dublin Boulevard. Therefore, site preparation, excavation and construction of footing, foundations, and access ramps for the Overcrossing Project would not result in disturbance of cultural resources and no new or substantially more severe significant impacts are anticipated other than what has already been identified and mitigated in the DCEIR.

However, as stated in the DCEIR, it is possible unanticipated resources could be uncovered or found during construction. The following Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure which address potential significant impacts to unknown archaeological or historic resources that could be found or uncovered during construction activities are incorporated into the proposed Overcrossing Project:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.4–2: Halt Work/ Archaeological Evaluation/ Site-Specific Mitigation. If any potential archaeological, pre-historic or cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or other construction activities, all ground disturbances within 50 feet of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can identify and evaluate the resource( s) in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15064. 5(f). The archeological consultant shall immediately notify the project sponsor and the City staff of the encountered archeological deposit. If the deposit does not qualify as an archaeological resource, then no further protection or study is necessary. If the deposit does qualify as an archaeological resource, then the impacts shall be avoided by project activities. If the deposit cannot be avoided, adverse impacts to the deposit shall be addressed in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines 15126.4(b). Measures may include, but are not limited to archaeological data recovery, etc. Upon completion of the assessment by the archaeologist, a professional- quality report shall be submitted to the City, the project applicant, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park. The project applicant shall fund and implement the mitigation in accordance with Section 15064.5(c) through (f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code 21083.2.

Conclusion. With incorporation of the DCEIR mitigation measures above, the Overcrossing Project would not create new or substantially more severe significant impacts to resources as defined by CEQA in Sections 15064 or 15064.5.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? As summarized above, there is no evidence to suggest that human remains would be found as a result of subsurface construction activities in the project area. However, the project incorporates the DCEIR mitigation measure (below) which would be implemented in the case that human remains are encountered during subsurface construction activities:
104
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: Halt Work/ Coroner’ s Evaluation/ Native American Heritage Consultant/ Compliance with Most Likely Descendent Recommendations. In the event that human remains are encountered during grading and site preparation activities, all ground- disturbing work within 50 feet of the remains shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall notify the Office of the Alameda County Coroner and advise that office as to whether the remains are likely to be Native American. If determined to be Native American, the Alameda County Coroner’ s Office shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission of the find, which in turn will then appoint a “ Most Likely Descendent. ( MLD).” The MLD in consultation with the archaeological consultant and the project sponsor will advise and help formulate an appropriate plan for treatment of the remains, which might include recordation, removal, and scientific study of the remains and any associated artifacts. After completion of the analysis and preparation of the report of findings, the remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to the MLD for burial.

Conclusion. With incorporation of the DCEIR mitigation measures presented above, the Overcrossing Project would not create new or substantially more severe significant impacts to human remains.
d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of a tribal cultural resource? Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. The resources must be listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or it is significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

As discussed above and summarized in Appendix C, the City of Dublin reached out to local tribes regarding Tribal Resources in the project area pursuant to the requirements of AB 52.

Following required consultation with Native American representatives, no Tribal Cultural Resources were identified.

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources would result from the Overcrossing Project.
105
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Energy Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure of
alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

6. ENERGY RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Existing Setting
The Iron Horse Regional Trail is not lighted in the vicinity of Dublin Boulevard and is restricted to non-motorized travel. The trail does not, therefore directly or indirectly consume any energy resources.

Regulatory Framework
Senate Bill 1389, State of California Integrated Energy Policy In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission to develop an integrated energy plan biannually for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Report. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. 106
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

An overarching goal of the integrated energy plan is to achieve the statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets, while improving overall energy efficiency is the main focus. The integrated energy plan is the State’ s chief program intended to provide a comprehensive statewide energy strategy to guide energy investments, energy- related regulatory efforts and greenhouse gas reduction measures.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, conserving energy consists of decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. As discussed in relation to Transportation issues, the proposed Overcrossing Project would decrease congestion and reduce idling time at the Dublin Boulevard intersection with Scarlett Drive and also encourage increase use of pedestrian and bicycle travel along the trail. As a result, the proposed project would conserve energy and reduce “ the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy” associated with automobile travel.

While construction of the Dublin Boulevard overcrossing would consume energy resources, construction activities would avoid use of diesel generators and draw power from the adjacent electrical grid, thereby decreasing reliance on fossil fuels during construction. All construction activities will be subject to DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.2-1a, Implement Short-term Construction Best Management Practices. As a result, all construction equipment will be required to be well maintained and will not left to idle when not in use. Construction- related travel routes will also be planned to minimize vehicle miles traveled. With the exception of one night of activity to install the bridge structure, all construction activities will occur during daytime hours and nighttime lighting will not be required. Thus, project construction will not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? By (1) decreasing congestion and reducing idling time at the Dublin Boulevard intersection with Scarlett Drive and (2) also encouraging increased use of pedestrian and bicycle travel along Iron Horse Regional Trail, including non-motorized travel to the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station, the proposed Overcrossing Project would assist in reducing use of non-renewable energy and increasing the efficiency of travel within areas near the trail. The project would, therefore, not obstruct any plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 107
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure of
alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

7. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY — Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code ( 1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to
life or property?
108
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure of
alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique
geologic feature?
Existing Setting
The project area is generally flat with a slope to the southwest. On-site elevation is approximately 336 feet at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and the Iron Horse Regional Trail. According to the Alameda County Soil Survey (NRCS 1996), the project area is comprised of Clear Lake Clay (0 to 3 percent slopes). Clear Lake clay is a very deep, poorly drained soil.

Permeability is slow to very slow, runoff is negligible to high.

Expansive Soils
Results of the Atterberg limits tests conducted for the DCEIR indicate that the clayey soils near the existing ground surface are highly expansive. Expansive soils shrink or swell significantly with changes in moisture content. Clay content and porosity of the soil also influence the change in volume. The most common cause of changing soil moisture content is seasonal fluctuation due to rainfall. The shrinking and swelling caused by expansive clay rich soil often results in damage to overlying structures, including foundations, floor slabs, pavements, sidewalks, and other improvements that are sensitive to soil movements. Usually, damage from expansive soils can be minimized or eliminated by using site-specific engineering techniques. 109
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Erosion Potential
Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, usually the top six to eight inches, and has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms. Topsoil erosion is of concern when the topsoil layer is blown or washed away. Most natural erosion occurs at relatively slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases where the ground surface is steep and when land is cleared and/ or left in a disturbed condition, such as may occur during the preparation and excavation phases of construction activities. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS), the Clear Lake soil at the project area is characterized as having slow to very slow erosion potential.

Liquefaction, Landslide Risk, and Other Soil Hazards
The project area is located within a California Geological Survey ( CGS) Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake. Based on the geotechnical investigation undertaken for the DCEIR, there is the potential for liquefaction to occur within the occasional interbedded layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table. These potentially liquefiable layers generally range from approximately half of a foot to two feet thick and are overlain by at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of soil towards a free face (such as incised river channel or open body of water) during earthquakes. There are no such features in the project vicinity. Alamo Creek and Tassajara Creek are located more than 1,500 feet to the northwest and 4,000 feet to the east, respectively. Chabot Canal is less than five feet deep and is not anticipated to pose a risk for lateral spreading. Therefore, the risk of lateral spreading to occur within the project area is considered low.

Seismic Compression
Settlement of ground surface can also occur as a result of seismic compression. The unsaturated soils encountered in the borings performed within the project area were predominantly stiff to very stiff clayey soils. Therefore, the potential for significant ground settlement due to seismic compression within the project area is considered low.

Landsliding
The project area is generally flat and there are no major slopes within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, there is no potential for landsides affecting the project area. 110
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Faults/ Seismic Hazards
A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which land on one side has moved relative to land on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth’ s surface defining the fault. An active fault is defined by the State Mining and Geology Board as a fault that has “ had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years).” This definition does not mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement within Holocene times are necessarily inactive. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity is sometimes difficult to obtain and locally may not exist.

A potentially active fault is a fault that shows evidence of surface displacement during Quaternary time (about the last 1.6 million years).

The project area is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 1 Several active faults in the vicinity of the project area include the Pleasanton, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas faults located approximately two, 10 and 29 miles to the southwest, respectively. The Mount Diablo Thrust and Greenville faults are located approximately two and 8½ miles to the northeast, respectively and the Las Positas Fault is located approximately 10½ miles to the southeast and the Concord- Green Valley fault approximately 12 miles to the northwest of the project area.

Pleasanton Fault
The California Department of Mines and Geology (CDMG) determined that the epicenters for several micro-earthquakes were plotted near the mapped surface location of the Pleasanton Fault, north of Camp Parks. However, according to CDMG it is believed that these earthquakes are associated with the active Calaveras fault, located approximately 1.3 miles west of the Pleasanton fault and there is no confirmed evidence to support historical seismicity on the Pleasanton Fault. No features were found within the project area associated with active faulting.

Ground Shaking
The project area is located within the San Francisco Bay area, which is a region of high seismicity. Similar to all sites located in the San Francisco Bay area, the project area is expected 1 The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (now referred to as “ Earthquake Fault Zones”) around the mapped surface traces of active faults. The Act requires local agencies to regulate development within Earthquake Fault Zones. Before a development project can be permitted within an Earthquake Fault Zone, a geologic investigation is required todemonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the fault. 111
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

to experience at least one moderate to large earthquake during the lifespan of the proposed project.

Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 (originally enacted as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994) and is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The main purpose of the law is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones known as “ Earthquake Fault Zones” around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning efforts. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. Before a development project can be permitted within an Earthquake Fault Zone, a geologic investigation is required to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. A site-specific evaluation and written report must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the fault.

California Building Standards Code (CBC)
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the CBC. The CBC is based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is used widely throughout the United States (generally adopted on a state-by-state or district-by district basis), and has been modified for conditions within California. The CBC requires extensive geotechnical analysis and engineering for grading, foundations, retaining walls, and other structures, including criteria for seismic design. The proposed project is located within Seismic Zone 4, which is expected to experience the greatest effects from earthquakes and requires the most stringent requirements for seismic design.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The CGS provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Seismic hazard zones are identified and mapped by the CGS to assist local governments in land use planning. The intent of the Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of 112
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

earthquake- related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations. The proposed project is located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where liquefaction may occur during a strong earthquake; however, the proposed project is not located within a CGS Seismic Hazard Zone where landslides may occur during a strong earthquake.

Impacts Evaluation
The DCEIR found that ground shaking is likely to occur in the event of a major earthquake on one of the nearby faults resulting in the exposure of people and/ or structures to potentially significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death. The DCEIR concluded this was potentially significant impact. The EIR also concluded development associated with the DCSP could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects of liquefaction.

Implementation of the Overcrossing Project constitutes future development within an area of expansive soils. Adherence to the City’s Building Code and CBC requirements along with implementation of the following mitigation measures included in the DCEIR would apply to the Overcrossing Project:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: Preparation of Design- Level Geotechnical Report.

Future development within the project area shall consult with a registered geotechnical engineer to prepare a design level geotechnical report that incorporates the recommendations included in the DCEIR’ s preliminary geotechnical investigation by Berlogar, Stevens and Associates ( March 2012). The design level geotechnical report shall address site preparation and grading (including measures to address potential liquefaction and expansive soils), building foundations, CBC seismic design parameters, and preliminary pavement sections. This report shall be submitted in conjunction with Building Permit application( s) and reviewed and approved by the City. The Report’ s recommendations shall be incorporated into the project design and construction documents.
a-c) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, or iv) landslides? Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Surface Fault Rapture and Seismic Shaking
The project site is located within the seismically- active San Francisco Bay region but is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no known earthquake faults crossing the site.

The Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities ( 2007) has estimated that there is a 63 percent probability that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between 2007 113
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

and 2036. An earthquake occurring on any of the fault lines in the region may induce seismic ground shaking at the project site. The proposed Overcrossing Project will be designed to withstand a major earthquake without collapse based on site-specific geologic conditions and regional earthquake probabilities. The project would not, therefore, result in a new or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the DCEIR.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Construction of the proposed bridge overcrossing would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, City engineering design requirements, and standard engineering design requirements, as well as any requirements set forth in a site-specific geologic and soils investigation to be undertaken for the project. As a result, the project would not expose people or structures to seismic-related ground failure hazards.

Landslides
The project area is generally flat with no potential for landslides. The north and south bridge approaches require construction of manufactured slopes. Such slopes will be designed to avoid erosion and surficial failure. As a result, no impacts in relation to landslides would result.

Liquefaction
Based on the geotechnical investigation undertaken for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, there is the potential for liquefaction to occur in the area within the occasional interbedded layers of loose to medium dense sandy soils that exist below the groundwater table. These potentially liquefiable layers generally range from approximately half a foot to two feet thick and are overlain by at least ten feet of non-liquefiable cover.

The DCEIR requires that future development comply with the City’ s Building Code, liquefaction regulations of the California. Building Code, and the City’s standard engineering practices and design criteria. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3 requires preparation of a design-level geotechnical report, which would address liquefaction and reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. As a result, the project would not expose people or structures to liquefaction hazards.
d) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Loss of Topsoil
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. The project would require minimal soil disturbance within the project area to prepare foundations and footings for a freespan bridge structure and associated ramps designed to create access to and from the 114
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

overcrossing. This minor amount of soil disturbance is not likely to result in any substantial soil erosion.

Expansive Soil
According to the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, soils in the area have a very high expansion potential. A design level geotechnical analysis would be required for the Overcrossing Project as required by DCEIR Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-3.

In addition, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’ s Building Code and CBC requirements. Therefore, with compliance with regulatory requirements and measures in the design level geotechnical report which would address expansive soils, the proposed project would not result in a significant or substantially more severe impact than was disclosed in the DCEIR. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts would result.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature?
As summarized above, there are no known paleontological resources within the project area. In addition, the project incorporates the DCEIR mitigation measure (below) which would be implemented in the case that previously unknown paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities:

DCEIR Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Halt Work/ Paleontological Evaluation/ Site-Specific Mitigation. If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface construction activities, all work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the finds. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, they shall be avoided by project construction activities and recovered by a qualified paleontologist. Upon completion of the recovery, a paleontological assessment shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist to determine if further monitoring for paleontological resources is required. The assessment shall include: I) the results of any geotechnical investigation prepared for the project area; 2) specific details of the construction plans for the project area; 3) background research; and 4) limited subsurface investigation within the project area. If a high potential to encounter paleontological resources is confirmed, a monitoring plan of further project subsurface construction shall be prepared in conjunction with this assessment. After project subsurface construction has ended, a report documenting monitoring, methods, findings, and further recommendations regarding paleontological resources shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Planning Director. 115
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Conclusion. The Overcrossing Project would not create new or substantially more severe significant impacts to paleontological resources.
116
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Measure
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS— Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Existing Setting
Global warming associated with the “ greenhouse effect” is a process whereby greenhouse gas GHG) accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’ s atmosphere over time. Therefore, unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants discussed in above in relation to air quality, emissions of Greenhouse Gases ( GHGs) have a broader, global impact. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming and associated climate change are carbon dioxide ( CO2), methane ( CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/ manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural sectors.

Regulatory Setting
California Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Order S-3-05
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006 and established a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to the adoption of AB 32, the Governor of California also signed Executive Order S-3-05 into law, which set a longterm objective to reduce GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/ EPA) is the state agency in charge of coordinating the GHG emissions reduction effort and establishing targets along the way. 117
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

In December 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’ s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal.

In May 2014, CARB adopted an updated Scoping Plan document. The 2014 Update highlights California’ s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan and evaluates how to align the State’ s longer-term greenhouse gas reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, such as for water, natural resources, agriculture, clean energy, and transportation and land use.

California Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. It builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035, consistent with the requirements of SB 375, MTC, and the ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area in July 2013. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed- use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas ( PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions. The project site is located in a PDA.

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Executive Order B-30-15, setting a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target. The purpose of establishing the interim target is to ensure California meets its previously established target of reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005.

Under Executive Order B-30-15, the interim target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

As a part of this effort, CARB is required to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. CARB will initiate a public process in the summer of 2015 to update the State’ s Climate Change Scoping Plan. The updated Scoping Plan will provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target and will be completed and adopted by CARB in 2016.
118
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

This Executive Order also calls for the California Natural Resources Agency ( CNRA) to update the State of California’ s climate adaption strategy, Safeguarding California, every three years.

The Safeguarding California plan will identify vulnerabilities to climate change by region and sector, including water, energy, transportation, public health, agriculture, emergency services, forestry, biodiversity and habitat, and ocean and coastal resources. It also will identify actions needed to reduce risks to residents, property, communities, and natural systems from the vulnerabilities. A lead agency or group of agencies will be identified to lead adaptation efforts in each sector. Overall, the CNRA will be responsible for ensuring that the provisions in the State’ s climate adaption strategy are fully implemented and state agencies must take climate change impacts into account in their planning decisions, including for all infrastructure projects.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines.

Regional Clean Air Plans
BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the state and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) provides an Atherton Channel Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Project 43 Initial Study/ Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a control strategy designed to reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants. The most recent CAP also includes measures design to reduce GHG emissions.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
BAAQMD’ s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance for GHG emissions and provide additional guidance for tiering under CEQA. Under the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a local government may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and General Plan that address the project’ s GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project would not have significant GHG emissions under CEQA.

City of Dublin Climate Action Plan
The City of Dublin prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) and IS/ MND in October 2010. The City’s CAP provides background on actions taken to curb GHG emissions; presents Dublin’ s baseline GHG emissions inventory in 2005 and forecast for GHG emissions in 2020 based on business- asusual scenario; establishes a GHG emissions reduction target; and presents steps for implementation of the CAP and monitoring and verification of the CAP to achieve the designated emissions reduction target.
119
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

The City’s CAP serves as the City of Dublin’ s qualified GHG Reduction Plan and programmatic tiering document for the purposes of CEQA for the analysis of impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. The City has determined that the reduction target under the CAP will reduce the impact from activities under the CAP to a less than significant level under CEQA. If a proposed project is consistent with the applicable emission reduction measures identified in the CAP, the project would be considered to have a less than significant impact (i.e., less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact) due to GHG emissions and climate change consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083. 3 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183. 5, 15064, and 15130.

Summary of Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR
The DCEIR addressed greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildout of the 189-acre Plan area and its housing, commercial and open space and park uses. Several measures that would be consistent with the CAP measures are included in the DCEIR. leading to the conclusion that the project is consistent with the CAP. Since the CAP is consistent with AB 32, the proposed project would not hinder the State' s GHG reduction strategies for meeting the goals established by AB 32.

Impacts Evaluation
a,b) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Bay Area AQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. In its analysis of Greenhouse Gas emissions, the DCEIR determined that GHG emissions would be generated by construction activities, as well as from increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), area sources, energy consumption, water supply, and solid waste generation. The DCEIR provided quantified emissions for area sources, energy consumption, mobile sources, water supply, and solid waste generation, since these were the only GHG emissions sources large enough to provide for meaningful analysis. Greenhouse gas emissions would occur during construction of the footings, foundation and user-access ramps, and during delivery and installation of the Overcrossing Project. Minimal vehicle trips would be necessary to complete the project. Based on the limited amount of construction- related activities necessary to complete the Overcrossing Project in relation to construction activities needed for buildout of the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan and implementation of Basic Construction Measures discussed in Section

4.3, Air Quality, of the DCEIR, the Overcrossing Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant GHG impacts than were disclosed in the DCEIR. 120
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962. 5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
121
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Existing Setting
Hazardous waste in California is regulated primarily under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other California laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup and emergency planning. In California, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has granted most enforcement authority of federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency ( Cal/ EPA).

Under the authority of Cal/ EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ( Regional Water Board) is responsible for overseeing the remediation of contaminated sites in the San Francisco Bay area.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. DOSH also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement, which equal or exceed their federal counterparts.

Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply with regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to reduce the risk associated with the human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead, and/ or other hazardous materials. 122
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Regulatory Setting
Federal, State, and local regulatory hazardous materials databases record the type of hazardous source, the status for cleanup, monitoring, and/ or remediation, and the location of the source.

These databases include:

National Priority List (NPL): Also known as Superfund, the NPL database identifies properties for priority cleanup under the Superfund program. The purpose of this database is to assist the U.S. EPA in prioritizing and determining sites that warrant further investigation through utilizing the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The EPA requires that the criteria provided by the HRS be used to make a list of national priorities of the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants in the United States.

Envirostor: The DTSC’ s Envirostor database identifies sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further.

The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites; State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites.

GeoTracker: This database contains registered underground storage tanks (USTs) as well as other hazardous material sites. The data originates from the State Water Resources Control Board’ s Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database.

A review of the Envirostor and GeoTracker databases did not identify any hazardous sources on-site or within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site Impacts Evaluation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Hazardous materials and substances are highly regulated at the federal, state, and local levels.

As stated in the DCEIR, compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean-up would ensure that construction and operations would have a less than significant impact in regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Because the Overcrossing Project would be subject to the same local, state, and federal laws that regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean-up, no new or substantially more severe impacts would result. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water 123
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the drainage system. As stated in the DCEIR, “ Handling procedures of the Alameda County Environmental Health Department and the Alameda County Fire Department would be required during all phases of future development within the project area. These measures include standards and regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of these materials.” As a result, the DCEIR concluded that impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Because the Overcrossing Project would (1) be subject to the same standards and regulations regarding the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials, ( 2) involve far lesser amounts of such materials dues to the far small size of the project compared to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, (3) have a far shorter construction period (60 days) compared to the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (intermittent construction activities over 8-12 years), no new or substantially more severe significant impacts would result. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The Overcrossing Project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The location of the Overcrossing Project is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The closest airport to the project area is the Livermore Municipal Airport which is located approximately five miles east of the project area. According to the Livermore Municipal Airport Master Plan, the project area is not located within the approach zones and is not located within an unacceptable noise contour. Therefore, the Overcrossing Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise levels for any people residing or working in the area. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Overcrossing Project includes a free-span bridge structure with a minimum 17-foot clearance over Dublin Boulevard, which is primarily a six lane east/ west arterial and a route of regional significance. Dublin Boulevard is also an important emergency evacuation route within the City. The minimum 17-foot vertical clearance provided by the Overcrossing Project provides for safe passage by large truck-trailer combinations and emergency vehicles, including fire engines and ladder trucks. The Overcrossing Project would not obstruct or impair operation of 124
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Dublin Boulevard and therefore would not physically interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan through the City.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
As the project area is located in an urban area and is surrounded by existing development, the Overcrossing Project would not expose people or structures to wildfire hazards.

Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in significant hazardous materials or hazard impacts and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant Impacts. 125
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Hydrology and Water Quality

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner that would:
1) result in substantial on- or off-site
erosion or siltation?
2) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
3) create or contribute to runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
4) impede or redirect flood flows?
126
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternatives that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Existing Setting
Flooding
National Flood Insurance Rate Maps indicate that a portion of the project area north of Dublin Boulevard is located within Zone X defined as “ areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or within drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent annual flood.” The portion of the project area south of Dublin Boulevard is designated as Zone AE which is a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual flood.

Groundwater
The Overcrossing Project is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, which contains a surface area of approximately 109 square miles. The Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin lies approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco and 30 miles southwest of Stockton, within a structural trough of the Diablo Range. The entire floor of the Livermore Valley and portions of the upland areas on all sides of the valley overlie groundwater bearing materials.

The materials are mostly continental deposits from alluvial fans, outwash plains, and lakes.

They include valley-fill materials, the Livermore Formation and the Tassajara Formation. 127
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Water Quality
The quality of surface and groundwater at the proposed project area is affected by land uses within the entire watershed. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated primarily by the State and RWQCBs ( discussed below).

Watershed Characteristics
The City of Dublin and the project site are located within the Livermore Drainage Unit, which is one of two major drainage basins in the Alameda Creek Watershed. The 660-square mile Alameda Creek Watershed is the largest watershed in the Bay Area, extending as far south as Mount Hamilton, north to Mount Diablo, east to the Altamont Hills in Livermore, and west to San Francisco Bay. The Overcrossing Project is within an 1,800+ acre watershed that conveys storm flows through natural and man-made features. The largest portion of this watershed is located north of the DCSP and drains south within the main channel of Chabot Channel, concentrating near the intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. Much of the area is currently a mapped Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain.

Regulatory Setting
Federal Clean Water Act
The principal law governing pollution of the nation’ s surface waters is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act [CWA]). Originally enacted in 1948, it was amended in 1972 and has remained substantially the same since. The CWA consists of two major parts:
provisions that authorize federal financial assistance for municipal sewage treatment plant construction and regulatory requirements that apply to industrial and municipal dischargers.

The CWA authorizes the establishment of effluent standards on an industry basis. The CWA also requires states to adopt water quality standards that “consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses”.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
To achieve its objectives, the CWA is based on the concept that all discharges into the nation’ s waters are unlawful, unless specifically authorized by a permit. The NPDES is the permitting program for discharge of pollutants into surface waters of the United States under Section 402 of the CWA. Thus, industrial and municipal dischargers ( point source discharges) must obtain NPDES permits from the appropriate RWQCB (i.e., the Central Valley region). The existing NPDES ( Phase I) stormwater program requires municipalities serving more than 1,000,000 persons to obtain a NPDES stormwater permit for any construction project larger than five acres. Proposed NPDES stormwater regulations ( Phase II) expand this existing national program to smaller municipalities with populations of 10,000 persons or more and construction sites that disturb more than one acre. For other dischargers, such as those affecting groundwater or 128
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

from non-point sources, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the RWQCB. For specified situations, some permits may be waived, and some discharge activities may be handled through being included in an existing General Permit.

Construction activity subject to a General Permit includes any clearing, grading, stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of one acre of total land area or more. Construction activities disturbing less than 1 acre are still subject to this permit if the activity is part of a large common plan of development or if significant water quality impairment will result from the activity. The General Permit requires all dischargers whose construction activity disturbs one acre or more to:

Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters; and,
Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharge to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States and inspect all BMPs.

Impaired Waterbodies
CWA Section 303(d) and California’ s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (described below) require the State to establish the beneficial uses of its State waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) establishes a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water body can maintain without experiencing adverse effects, to guide the application of State water quality standards. Section 303(d) also requires the State to identify “ impaired” streams (water bodies affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish the TMDL for each stream.

Federal Flood Insurance Program
Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. FEMA administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development on floodplains. FEMA issues FIRMs for communities participating in the NFIP. FIRMs delineate flood hazard zones in the community.

A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is an area within a floodplain having a one percent or greater chance of flood occurrence within any given year (commonly referred to as the 100 year flood zone). SFHAs are delineated on flood hazard boundary maps issued by FEMA. The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 make flood insurance mandatory for most properties in SFHAs. 129
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act acts in cooperation with the CWA to establish the SWRCB. The SWRCB is divided into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. The SWRCB, and thus each RWQCB, is responsible for protecting California’ s surface waters and groundwater supplies. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act develops Basin Plans that designate the beneficial uses of California’ s rivers and groundwater basins. The Basin Plans also establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Basin Plans are updated every three years and provide the basis of determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. The Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act is also responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401-402 and 303(d) to SWRCB and RWQCBs.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates surface water and groundwater quality in San Francisco Bay, including the City of Dublin. The area under the RWQCB’ s jurisdiction comprises all of the San Francisco Bay segments extending to the mouth of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta (Winter Island near Pittsburg). In its efforts to protect surface waters and groundwaters of the San Francisco region, the RWQCB addresses region wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial update of a Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan, 2011) and adopts, monitors compliance with, and enforces waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits.

The RWQCB’ s overall mission is to protect surface waters and groundwater in the Region. The Water Board carries out its mission by:

Addressing Region wide water quality concerns through the creation and triennial Update of a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan);
Preparing new or revised policies addressing Region wide water quality concerns; Adopting, monitoring compliance with, and enforcing waste discharge requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permits; Providing recommendations to the State Water Board on financial assistance programs, proposals for water diversion, budget development, and other statewide programs and policies;
Coordinating with other public agencies that are concerned with water quality control; and
Informing and involving the public on water quality issues. 130
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The SWPPP has two major objectives: 1) to help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that affect the quality of storm water discharges, and 2) to describe and ensure the implementation of BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in both stormwater and in non-stormwater discharges.

BMPs include activities, practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices that reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges. BMPs include treatment requirements, operation procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage, leaks, waste disposal, and drainage from raw materials storage.

BMP implementation must take into account changing weather conditions and construction activities, and various combinations of BMPs may be used over the life of the project to maintain compliance with the CWA. The General NPDES Permit gives the owner the discretion to determine the most economical, effective, and innovative BMPs to achieve the performancebased goals of the General NPDES Permit.

There are two categories of BMPs: structural and non-structural. Structural BMPs are the specific construction, modification, operation, maintenance, or monitoring of facilities that would minimize the introduction of pollutants into the drainage system or would remove pollutants from the drainage system. Non-structural BMPs are activities, programs, and other nonphysical measures that help reduce pollutants from non-point sources to the drainage system. In general, nonstructural BMPs are source control measures.

The issue of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff has been recognized by both federal and state agencies, and there has been a growing concern regarding activities that discharge water affecting California’ s surface water, coastal waters, and groundwater. Discharges of water are classified as either point source or non-point source discharges. A point source discharge usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable point. Regulated point sources include municipal wastewater, oil field wastewater, winery discharges, solid waste sites, and other industrial discharges. Point source discharge must be actively managed to protect the state’ s waters. A non-point source discharge usually is a waste emanating from diffused locations. As a result, specific sources of non-point source pollution may be difficult to identify, treat, or regulate. The goal is to reduce the adverse impact of non-point source discharges on water resources through better management of these activities. Non-point sources include drainage and percolation from a variety of activities such as agriculture, forestry, recreation, and storm runoff with the latter being the most common in the Dublin area. 131
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Construction of the Overcrossing Project will require limited grading and excavation to create footings and foundations on the north and south sides of Dublin Boulevard where the free span bridge structure would touch down and connect to ramps extending from the bridge back down to the Iron Horse Trail. Construction disturbance of soil surfaces in the project area will create the potential for surface water to carry sediment from onsite erosion into the storm water system and local waterways. Construction of the proposed project will also require the use of gasoline and diesel powered equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, water pumps, and air compressors. Chemicals such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, hydraulic oil, lubricating grease, automatic transmission fluid, paints, solvents, glues, and other substances will be utilized during construction. An accidental release of any of these substances could degrade the water quality of the surface water runoff and add additional sources of pollution into the drainage system.

As stated in the DCEIR for Dublin Crossing Specific Plan, all construction would be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements including preparation of a SWPPP, which would incorporate BMPs to control erosion, siltation, and contaminated runoff from construction sites. The proposed Overcrossing Project will be subject to the same requirements for implementation of BMPs during construction.

The BMPs for storm water quality treatment set forth in the DCEIR include structural and nonstructural measures. Structural measures may include bio-filters, wetlands, infiltration basins, or mechanical structures designed to remove pollutants from stormwater. Nonstructural measures such as street sweeping, public education, or hazardous substance recycling centers are preventive measures intended to control the source of pollutants. Typical BMPs that are included within NPDES permit requirements include:

Use of sand bags and temporary desiltation basins during project grading and construction during the rainy season ( November through April) to prevent discharge of sediment- laden runoff into storm water facilities;
Installation of landscaping as soon as possible after completion of grading to reduce sediment transport during storms;
Hydroseeding of graded building pads if they are not built upon before the onset of the rainy season;
Incorporation of structural BMPs ( e.g., grease traps, debris, screens, continuous deflection separators, oil/ water separators, drain inlet inserts) into the project design to provide detention and filtering of contaminants in urban runoff from the developed site prior to discharge to storm water facilities; and
132
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Stenciling of catch basins and other publicly visible flood control facilities with the phrase, “ Don’t Dump - Pollutes Our Creeks.”
Additionally, prior to construction grading, the project applicant are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit and prepare the SWPPP, which addresses the measures that will be included in the project to minimize and control construction and postconstruction runoff to the “maximum extent practicable.” Such a notice will be filed for the Overcrossing Project.

Stormwater Pollution Previsions Plans ( SWPPPs) would also be prepared, as a separate document, to control short-term construction- related discharge pollutants as required by the CA State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ. Project grading plans would conform to the Alameda County Clean Water Program, low impact design (LID) site design measures for water quality protection and would be required to show compliance with the post-construction, long-term requirements of Provision C.3. Project design would be review by the City of Dublin and are subject to City approval. The required SWPPP for the Overcrossing Project will also be reviewed by the Zone 7 Water Agency to ensure adequacy and appropriateness of BMPs.

Typical measures, or their equivalent, will be included in the SWPPP for the overcrossing Project, which will be implemented to prevent storm water pollution and minimize potential sedimentation during construction.

Restrict grading to dry season ( April through October) or use BMPs for wet season erosion control;
Preclude non-storm water discharges to the storm water system; Perform monitoring of discharges to the storm water system; Construction practices will include the use of stabilized construction entrances and/ or wash racks, street sweeping, use of erosion control devices Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe impacts beyond what was analyzed and addressed in the DCEIR would occur as a result of construction and operation of the overcrossing structure and user access ramps.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable management of the basin? The Overcrossing Project could affect groundwater supplies in three ways: use of water during construction, use of water during operations, and increasing impervious surface area leading to reduction in groundwater recharge.

Water use during construction will occur during an estimated 60-day construction period primarily during site excavation and grading to reduce fugitive dust and emissions of PM10 and 133
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

PM2.5. Only minor intermittent use of water may be required as part of long-term maintenance of the bridge structure and its approaches. The DCEIR determined that water used during site grading and construction of the 189-acre Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not result in significant impacts. Because grading and earthmoving activities associated with the Overcrossing Project would not occur at the same time as grading of the 189-acre Specific Plan area, no significant impacts would result from the Overcrossing project.

The DCEIR concluded that development associated with the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan would not increase impervious areas to the extent adverse impacts to the amount of available groundwater would result. While the DCEIR does not specifically quantify increased impervious surface area, the development of up to 1,995 dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of commercial uses along with required parking areas, a 12-acre school, and 23.8 acres of roadways would represent approximately 62 acres of impervious surface area. Because of the very small increase in impervious surface area that would result from the Overcrossing Project approximately 0.3 acres), its construction and operation would not affect groundwater or groundwater recharge and impacts would remain less than significant. c1) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through addition of impervious surfaces in a manner that would result in substantial on- or off-site erosion or siltation?
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. The project would require minimal soil disturbance within the project area to prepare foundations and footings for a freespan bridge structure and associated ramps designed to create access to and from the overcrossing. This minor amount of soil disturbance, combined with implementation of best management practices during construction, would not result in any substantial soil erosion or siltation.
c2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
The DCEIR concludes that development of the 189-acre Specific Plan area for residences, commercial uses, parks and schools would substantially increase the impervious surface area, thereby altering the existing drainage pattern and amount of surface runoff resulting in a potential increase in peak storm water flows (i.e., 10- and 100-year storm events). The mitigation measures to address this potentially significant impact, and the associated regulatory requirements for development are identified in the DCEIR and include requirements for the construction of detention basins and storm drainage plans to accommodate the increased runoff associated with the development of the 189 acres in the Specific Plan area.

The Overcrossing Project’ s free-span bridge structure foundations and footings and the user access ramps would create minimal additional impervious surface area (approximately 0.3 acres) which would not result in an exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
134
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

c3) Create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Construction of footings, foundation and user access ramps would involve grading and excavation would have the potential to create storm runoff during construction. However, compliance with regulatory requirements included in the DCEIR as summarized above would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts associated with water quality and runoff beyond what was analyzed and addressed for the Specific Plan’ s 189-acre development.

Rain falling directly onto the bridge structure would flow down the approach ramps on either side of Dublin Boulevard rather than directly onto Dublin Boulevard. Because the portion of the bridge structure directly above Dublin Boulevard is small in area (less than 0.1 acres) and does not increase impervious surface area within the project site, such diversion of rain water from Dublin Boulevard to the north and south approach ramps would not cause the capacity of any existing or planned stormwater drainage facility to be exceeded. In addition, because the bridge and approach ramps would be open only to non-motorized traffic, the Overcrossing Project would not represent a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. c4) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The overcrossing project does not include any structures that might impede flood flows. d) In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The project is located more than 14 miles from the shore of the San Francisco Bay and approximately 32 miles from the Pacific Ocean. In addition, there are no large water bodies in the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not be affected by a tsunami or seiche.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The proposed Overcrossing Project would comply with all applicable water quality requirements and would not decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable management of the basin.

Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Conclusion
The Overcrossing Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts from flooding.
135
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Land Use and Planning

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Measure
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Existing Setting
Land uses along both sides of Dublin Boulevard include a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Lands immediately to the west are zoned M-1 light Industrial and to the east the designation is Priority Development area. The land use north of Dublin Boulevard within the project area is a community park zoned Open Space/ Parks (P) that includes a 30-acre community park (Don Biddle Park). The park is a gathering place for the residents of Dublin Crossing and the broader community of Dublin. The project area also is centered along the Iron Horse Regional Trail which is an existing multi-use pathway that runs north-south through Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, connecting the cities of Concord, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, and the Town of Danville; and is managed by the East Bay Regional Parks District.

Summary of Dublin Crossing Specific Plan EIR Findings
The DCEIR concluded that development of the 189-acre Specific Plan area would not conflict with planning documents, is compatible with adjacent land uses in terms of scale of development, noise, traffic, and hours of operation compared with existing conditions, and would not physically divide an established community.

The DCEIR requires that development in the Specific Plan area would be subject to the City’ s design review process, including formal Site Development Review. The DCEIR concludes that implementation of the development standards and design guidelines would ensure compatibility with existing and potential adjacent uses. 136
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

With implementation of the development standards and design guidelines and implementation of a formal Site Design Review, the DCEIR concluded that build out of the Specific Plan would be compatible with existing and potential adjacent land uses and would not physically divide an established community.

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The Iron Horse Trail overcrossing project would facilitate safe crossing of Dublin Boulevard for users of the Iron Horse Trail and as such would serve to better connect and not divide established communities. The Overcrossing Project would be subject to the design guidelines and standards included in the DCEIR which prevent incompatibility with adjacent and future land uses in the vicinity.

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with the General Plan or other applicable City land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The overcrossing project is included in the DCEIR as a mitigation measure. The overcrossing project is consistent with City land use, policy, and regulations and would be subject to design guidelines included in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan.

Conclusion. No new or substantially more severe significant impact. 137
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Mineral Resources

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Measure
Previously found
to be Infeasible
or Declined by
Project
Proponent now
Proposed
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

12. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be either locally important or of value
to the region and the residents of the
state?
Existing Setting
The DCEIR concludes there are no mineral resources in the DCSP area which includes the Don Biddle Community Park and the project area north of Dublin Boulevard. Mineral resources do not exist on the project area south of Dublin Boulevard ( DOC 2018).

Impacts Evaluation
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be either locally important or of value to the region and the residents of the state? Because there are no known mineral resources within the project area, no impacts would result from the Overcrossing Project.

Source( s)
California Department of Conservation ( DOC), California Geological Survey, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/ minerals/mlc/Pages/ Index.aspx, accessed November 5, 2018. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/mlc/Pages/Index.aspx,%20access ed%20November%205
138
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

Noise

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues
1)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact
2)
New Information
Indicates that a
Mitigation
Measure or
Alternative that
was Previously
found to be
Infeasible or
Declined by
Project
Proponent is now
Proposed
3)
New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impact
Avoided with
Mitigation
Incorporated
4)
No New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impact

13. NOISE — Would the project:
a) Result in generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Result in generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) Exposure of people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels from a private
airstrip, public airport, or public use
airport?
Existing Setting
Mobile and Stationary Noise Sources
Both mobile and stationary noise sources contribute to the existing noise levels within the project area. The primary noise sources are mobile noise sources from car and truck traffic with high volumes of traffic along Interstate 580 (I-580), Interstate 680 (I-680), and noise automobile traffic from adjacent Dublin Boulevard and from vehicles using Scarlett Drive, which will be completed and in use at the time construction is initiated in the project area. Another mobile source of noise, the BART station, is located approximately 1,500 feet south of the project boundary. The station is located within the median of I-580 and any associated noise is generally masked by freeway traffic noise which is audible from the project site. The primary 139
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND

stationary noise sources are the adjacent commercial and residential uses and includes parking lot noise, as well as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.

Sensitive Receptors
Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors to noise include residential areas, schools, hospitals, churches, recreational areas, and transient lodging. Residential areas are also considered particularly sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours. Sensitive receptors for the Overcrossing Project would include park users, trail users, and the adjacent residential uses located east of the Iron Horse Trail on the south side of Dublin Boulevard.

Regulatory Setting
State of California Guidelines
The State of California Office of Planning and Research ( OPR) Noise Element Guidelines include recommended interior and exterior level standards for local jurisdictions to identify and prevent the creation of incompatible land uses due to noise. The OPR Guidelines describe the compatibility of various land uses with a range of environmental noise levels in terms of dBA CNEL.

According to the Office of Planning and Research ( OPR) Guidelines, single-family homes are considered to be “ normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple- family residential uses are “ normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “ conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. The State indicates that locating residential units, parks, and institutions ( such as churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals) in areas where exterior ambient noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL is undesirable. The OPR recommendations also note that, under certain conditions, more restrictive standards than the maximum levels cited may be appropriate. As an example, the standards for quiet suburban and rural communities may be reduced by 5 to 10 dB to reflect their lower existing outdoor noise levels in comparison with urban environments.

City of Dublin Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code includes standards pertaining to noise control within the City.

Municipal Code Section 5.28.020 prohibits any person within the City to make any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area. As noted in the DCEIR, the noise standards set forth in the Municipal Code pertain to stationary sources and do not apply to construction noise. In addition, the standards set forth in the General Plan Noise element do not address noise from trails or construction activities.
140
City of Dublin Iron Horse Trail Dublin Boulevard Overcrossing Project Initial Study/ Supplemental MND