The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttchmt 6 - Part 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study) " CITY OF DUBLIN INITIAL STUDY February 9,2006 Mission Peak Property/Standard Pacific Homes Fallon Crossing - P A 04-016 Annexation to the City of Dnblin and Dnblin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), Planned Development Prezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan, Annexation Agreement, Vesting Tentative Tract Map & Site Development Review 6847 Tassajara Road Fredrich Property Annexation to the City of Dnblin and DSRSD, Planned Development/Stage 1 Development Plan, Prezoning and Annexation Agreement 6847 Tassajara Road INTRODUCTION This Initial Study has been prcpared by the City of Dublin to assess whether the potcntial site- specific environmental effects of the proposed Mission Peak Property/Standard Pacific Homes _ Fallon Crossing Stage I Planned Development PrezoninglDevelopment Plan and Annexation rcquest, and subsequent Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning/Devclopment Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map & Site Development Rcview are within those examined in the Program EJR for thc Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan and, and whether any other circumstances require preparation of a subsequent environmental document under Government Code Section 65457 or Public Resources Code Scction 21166. In addition, this Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the annexation of the 7.93-acrc Fredrich parcel in conjunction with annexation of the proposed Fallon Crossing project. The Fredrich property is proposed for annexation and prezoning with a Stage 1 Planned Dcvelopment reflecting the existing dcvelopment only; no developmcnt is proposed for the Fredrich property at this time. Dublin Conul1unity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 ATT:.CHMENT ~ The prope11ies are located in Alameda County adjacent to and northeast of the City of Dublin as shown in Figure I, Regional Map. Specifically, the two properties are located north and east of the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road as shown in Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The environmental analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provide the City with adequate information for the annexation of both parcels and project review of the proposed development plan for Fallon Crossing. The analysis is conducted in checklist form, as suggested by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Program EIR. This Initial Study includes a Projeet Deseription, Environmental Cheeklist Form, and an Evalnation and Discussion of the environmental issues identified in the checklist for both parcels, as indicatcd and a Determination. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Fallon Crossing The Applicant, Standard Pacific Homes, is proposing to develop the Fallon Crossing project consisting of a Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Stagc 1 Development Plan in conjunction with Annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD with 103 homes on 19.5 acres of a 67.8 acre site that is located on a piece of vacant property known as Mission Peak. The project ineludes the development of 103 single-family detached homes on individual lots that is consistent with the number of units allowed by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allows a maximum of 172 residences on the site. Access to the site is from Tassajara Road by a new two-lane road that will extend east from Tassajara Road through the site. The project proposes a lincar approximately 1.0-acrc park along the northcrn area of the site, north of the area proposed for residential developmcnt and adjaccnt to an unnamed creek cOlTidor. The park includes a pedestrian trail, sitting areas, small play areas and native landscaping. The park would provide passivc recreation for project residents. Grading will be requircd to provide suitable building pads, interior roads, ctc. Some off-site grading on thc property south of the sitc will be required to grade an existing hillside to meet the slopc ratio required by the Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan. Other on-sitc hillside grading will also be required to providc suitable slope ratios and COlTect soil conditions. The grading of the hillsides will incorporate contour grading to match cxisting topography as much as possible and minimizc cxtensive cuts and fills. A detention basin system is proposed in the northern area of the site, north of the proposed 1.0- acre park. A complete description of drainage and the retention basin is ineluded on pages 11- 13 of this document. All surface water runoff from the devcloped areas of thc sitc will be discharged into a proposed on-site retention basin. The retention basin is designed to capture runoff from the project and measures approximately 50 fcet wide by 100 feet long. The Dublin COlllmunity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 2 \ N...- _/ ( , r" * DUBLIN L ! s !:: q:f \ , ~ ~ \ ,~., : ~1 """"-0 '\ I~l--- L,.( l.\ "~~- '" ' '~' ) \ r~(~~: ) ~~. Q.O~- Source: Phil Martin & Associates, 2005 Figure 1 Regional Location Map MOLLER COUNIY COSTA IY ONTRA COUN C ,~lEDA ,ALl' ~ -N- j] "'C ~ \;-] (j ~ Project Site Source: City of Dublin, 2006 UN Fredrich Property GLEASON ENTRAL l::l ~ Q:: Q? ~ Yi lI) ~ DRIVE PKWY DUBL/tV BL vu IN'TERSTAIT 580 ~ SfJ't- ~\~ ~\'r- cJ UN /' :..t.(.( O.-y Standard Pacific Homes Property C) C\:: C\::e:, ~"'C (j~ L;j l~igurc 2 Vicinity Map retention basin will be maintained on a yearly basis for sediment removal. A water quality pond will be located adjacent to the retcntion basin to improve the quality of the surface water collected from the retention basin prior to the discharge of surface water into the unnamed stream along the northern project boundary. The water quality pond is approximately 0.14 acres in size and designed to support California red-lcgged frog breeding. The water quality pond will not be maintained for sediment or vegetation removal, but rather left in its existing condition. Water that is discharged from the retention basins and water quality pond would be directcd to an unnamed creek north of the basin. The unnamed stream is tributary to Tassajara Creek, which is located wcst of Tassajara Road. The water will be discharged into the creek through an outfall structure. The outfall structurc is a 9-foot by 20-foot by 12-foot concrete structure. Sheet pilings will be installed above the ordinary high water line of the unnamed creek to provide a footing for the outfall. The concrete chambers will dissipate water velocity from storm water discharges. One chamber includes rock and 14 ton rip rap to slow water flow as it enters the creck charmel at the ordinary high water line. A rock riprap protection apron and coir fabric will be provided below the high water line. Bank protection material will be installed over a 15 foot wide length of channel and extend 5 feet below the ordinary high water line. The dimcnsions of the rock riprap are 15 feet by 5 feet by 3 feet. Additional work associated with the outfall structure includes the construction of an undcrground culvert from the water quality pond to outfall stmcture. This underground trench will require the excavation of a trench that measures approximately 15 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 6 feet deep from the edge of the riparian drip line to the outfall stmcture. A 200-foot setback to the residences is proposed from the existing California red-legged pond in the n0l1heast area of the site. The 200-foot area around the pond will be fenced and posted to discourage unauthorized entry into the fenccd area to protect the frog habitat. This cxisting California red-legged frog pond is in addition to thc proposed retention basin that will be constructcd as part of the project. Water will be provided to the project by DSRSD with a westerly extension of an existing Zone 7 water line in Fallon Road that currently terminates at thc Silvera Ranch project. Silvcra Ranch is adjaccnt to and south of Fallon Crossing. The water line will be extended from its present location wcsterly to the intersection of Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. Wastewater service will be provided to thc project hy DSRSD with the extcnsion of an existing sanitary sewer linc in Tassajara Road at Silvera Ranch Drive south of thc site. The IO-inch sanitary sewer line will be extended to the intersection of Fallon Road with Tassajara Road to serve the project. Wastcwatcr from the project will gravity flow from thc site into the IO-inch sanitary sewer line in Tassajara Road Tassajara Road is designated as a sccnic cOlTidor by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As such, the project will provide measures to protect the scenic qualities of the site from adverse impacts related to vehicular use of Tassajara Road. Additionally, Fallon Road will be designated a scenic corridor upon its connection at Tassajara Road as rcquired by General Plan Policy 5.6.A. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 5 The Fallon Crossing project proposes to maintain approximately 46.8 acres of open space. A large area of the open space will include the hills located throughout the eastern portion of the site. There are two marunade ponds on the sitc: one is located in the northeast area of the sitc elose to the crcek and was constnlcted for the preservation of the California red-legged frog; and a second is located in the southern area of the site half way up a hill at the base of an intermittent drainage fed by seasonal seeps on the hillside, which was constructed for mitigation purposes and has been known to support brecding California Tiger Salamanders. Both ponds will be preserved in their existing condition with the project. The project will be constructed in a singlc phase. A copy of the proposed Stage 1 Development Site Plan is shown in Figure 3. The proposed Stage I Site Plan for Fallon Crossing is shown in Figure 4. The proposcd project is located in Alameda County, but entirely within the original East Dublin Specific Plan Area as adopted by the Dublin City Council on May 19, 1993 and in Resolution 53-93. The applicant has requested annexation into the City of Dublin through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as the propcrty lies outside but contiguous with the incorporated City boundary. Government Code section 65457 provides that any residcntia1 project that is consistent with a specific plan for whi.ch an EIR has been certified is exempt from CEQA, unless additional specific information and study is required. The City prepared this Initial Study for the project to determine whether there would be additional cnviroruncntal impacts occurring as a result of this projcct beyond or different from those already addressed in the prior Program ELR for the Eastern Duhlin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendmcnt, ccrtified in 1993, and subsequent amendments (further details are included in the Summary section below). Fredrich Property The project also ineludes the anncxation and prezoning of the Fredrich propel1y into Dublin and DSRSD. The Fredrich propcrty is located adjacent to and wcst of Tassajara Road and totals approximately 7.93 acres. The property contains a singe-family residencc and accessory buildings presently. Thcre are no fm1hcr deve10pmcnt plans for the Fredrich propcrty at this time; therefore, the prezoning Stage 1 Development Plan reflects the existing uses on the site. SUMMARY This Initial Study is intended to address all cntitlement actions and development phases rclated to thc Fallon Crossing project through completion. The environmental analyses contained in this document have resulted in the conclusion that the proposed Fallon Crossing project could have Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 6 ~\ . -~~. '~ r--- . \\ \. Fredrich , , :1 :1 , 'I 'L -~ Fallon Crossing , , Open Spa'ce Existing- U~e-; Graling.l,,- . Ope!lSp2Ce '/;.\P,,:j..,~ ---Neig~boihood Park Exi~ting Uso; Gr<lzingl . Open'Sp~ce Single Family Reslde'ntial ExiSting'Use: 13r,8zing!.. Open Space ./ .,../ r----',. 7' // /^...';; I, \j>\,'~" ;/- / / '. >/ .>1 <\~'>:,\ , \~:\ <j", . '~,\ I.Dnd Use Summary Table "-"'-~-~~"-~-~"'''''~~~~'-~-''''';;::;;;;;-] 4 L;"':;~;:;~P ~ r - - Pfc.r~S~d Lan'; lh" I $p~<Ojli<: Pia" Lo"" U~e S~_~~~:J ~~~=~~..~~,;-~:-l;~';:._~..t.':.'.:;.~p. '"'+;;:;-i.~~~:;:-"~~~ ~Neight;.>'~""'IC,,"'mm"'l l II, ~,u i 0 T=u J --:~..1---~;=1 r;;;;;" ~~b-r'C"~ilY ._u.__ -~ "r" 0-":- .~_. -~1-l ,-:; 1.25.0 i 15 2"1 ; '_n~~jt:">r,lial " I ,,_ _ I , ,I _ " __$ , =t ,.. -I j ~;;~;;;c,.,";,;,~:: --i=--j.:~:t'_e_~:=__-~:=-=='. lM~diumH;\!h!)e<";ilY - I - ! - t 3.4 ,14_1.~5,O - 4] :>S ~ ~Re<ld~lt~_ __ ____ _I ,___ -f- -~ l___---+-_ -i l _Sm;'\lr.ALr l-...~l_~_ 22'~L ~-~~-~h.S~t ~~~~lOTA~ -~ -=-l~__~ ~ ~~_ ~=.J_~~.___.~s.~.;~:., /~;:;~:~ ',/~;;.t.\ /F/'.>-:<\ ,;~o:<S~::" ",,,,,,. . ,., h."',-, lJ"".Su....;".- I'ho .1...."","I"I",l"',-~.,."L~'",- 1'''''-';,'_'7 ,.,,-, Source: Ruggeri - Jensen - Alar & Associates -.. _/ ?c. ~,"-'" -\ ~~~{)J"'CT /:'::<~"~..i ......"SI,E . _Co:;;,"~ .1 , ij ~i t:1 "'!< ---'--~r-~-~",~,,:i..~!_ --SC~''--__/-- :.~-- j__~tl~:"::~~"--T --l .~-.J~:";:rurr~.:,.:- Iff"--- 4r':,: -''''i~:~' '\,~;:- ~". VICI~T_'t J~~,P -- - "",''', ,~"" Figure 3 Stage 1 Site Plan I Fallon Crossing & Fredrich [JIl rnm 1'~'Dl' I"" ''''';<'- '". ~ or, '-.",,!)-13--(!5 ,~-~~ / ,J."",:, l" ,.<c" :::'. ." (!:~ , , , / ,,<;"" ,,;y (<'I ...,'t:c.J ~. , , , ~~~..-.-"'!!."'" r- /~ .-~ '\ ._.,~.. (\' \ / _-\\/\<~' '.~'S~:~~>'~( ....('---- /' \ \ \ '-.., " ,".~ ".. ,'. - ._.... c.\ '. , .. .. \'" . ",' .... <" ," . .', \ . \ , \ \ ......... '" ........' . '.',.... " / /'r,::;,.;::"i'-' " ~""..., "'~ '.,.... '''..::---.::--- ~ ""~" '" '-..,......... .', " -> . ..: k" \ \.. \ ' .,.... . " , ,........ ," >/. ,6 ,':;;;f:Xc;..'!;;,.", '... ','" '. .. '....~ <...... .... ,>, .... .... " .... ". \ . ' .", r Z" '. .:... <', '... <..'..."" ",.... ....' . ...... ' \ ~ I~ ::~ ')'/ll};;:.~ '..... ' '''. '- "., "". .........~~'. ........................ "-. ......... '" -~I I .~l/ <!l:,. ~/(. .}':~:;;',i--~""""'" ....., "." '...., '......... . ..... ~ ...... ' ~~ ~ ".--j .," . ,,,vJ'''' .. .' . . ,. ".." ! ty;;;':" .' JI,~" 'r1/"'l'''......, ........ ,'," " ...'.::".'~ "., I. l." .,~<'(;l:r{.ti.", '~/!),),' ,.".#,;-,';'.,.... '...... "" ' ' ....................... ~ ".. " ~~ ~, ,/,I "",,- I ' /J"~;::;'I"'" ".If.) ,'-. -~!! ",..",I,r'~' " . .. ...,..........."......... -..... ~~"""",~"--7 /r-.... ....,' ,.", 1"..1 ,~"'i',( :-~",t":,' ", r .~,;;;JIf.r ,,~/"'""'-~ 7:*,"" ~ " ~"......~ ''',"--- (/ /' ,./;,1" "", / I "",- .~- -~ ,,/, k......... ' ' ~ --' / /"" ,0 ,~.:' K ,,' N"rV<"~"""~~'''' ~ "'" ,~->//- " ,', ",,,, ,~~,., "'i" ,,' Kh'U ': I"" . ,,' / / {// ~ /)" ,'Md, I' "..,:. j," ,,">!.'.'~ :" d",.t. ' " " / J I 'l-~' '-:::'-',~ I ,..-> ~'~1. r;c'P" ,,' 1 ~' ",,',( /11..'>...................... _/ f.' , ~~;)"i"~ ''I / .1 ~'~1.. ,~ /j.l'".."",f .,,!P,1. il/..i,"",. . ,~/y '" ";;C,, ........ :-........;'.........." / / ,'f".t i' ',' '$'~/ .... "". * . r ) i'.;'- t!i.".",;~-.~ ,,"'-//....) ,-)./':t-)j , >- 7 .., ,,"<' ,.." ,,-' ,,,::-,0, Jfl . d~ ." .. ."N.II'd! ....... .. "..o:C::: / ' 'f!;:r-":,,7..~/ / II / ,~~/L, (?!,,,,,.:./~.,,-'H ~''-f,;;.:;' 0'>" .''>.~I /~' ,~,'"-- ) I,'" /.I..'f--....,,~ ..:;,,~-, I ," ,~::.> '~, ;"" . i r,>-o ,-" '-..111;."":';0, * "";J .J / i ,..!;" --:'.1,' I / ;,-?>- '1' ,~.~..j'!/!'--t i_/lf~~' /!~ --"- ~ civ,,~, \ ----- I 'i f':' ;.y , " s' , ,,_d'" ,," f"''''' " " /1 I' /Ii...j'~:f!,d ' / I'<'~' ['" ~ 'V' ""./ IX""" , I " } '~~~"" ;,., ': : / ; '"'1:,""",/,1,,".' ,.;(/1 ~""" ifF--f'"!~fO' I j'<'-;It /y I ! ' P /,,",.1'::':::::..::'1,"1 l t /_~ -~.:.-~,i ,/ !/?// i2!.,j td" ~ IF-+-~r ;;::,,,..1Q '~":::--. (,f.AA-:1\"-' \ I "I" r ....; /' -.- ' ' """"./" /'-'. f""';t' .t" \ j) I ,1.,..,J":" ,/.,. 1"" ;,..#'/ d' ,,"v '// '( .;'.r-. 'XI / !l:o:("~'!t!!';>/ .../ /!i"t...",,"~jF1! f~~:;~: Tf'::- ?t:.;,4'// /j71'/"'~:'t,,!.."<1"'/'~:';:-:!fi~" ; ~, . ,_ " ,,'" ..., ,/ ,"".., '.. ;,"" n /k," r.., ,/, 1\ \ /(/ f" ,1-;.':'<-} ;' ::'~ ('-!.';' ,I.....~l~ f~ "-',l/I /' /1/r~4-4' '---I ~/J~~'?;'$:.~ / ~/ /\ , .., ",.."" ? " ....F/ ,( "'fI ' --r)' / ". ,/ " ,:cD~. ' . :"', .,,"" ~. i: t";'< fr / /;'~./ ,i'CiW'" I/" /,1 ' .r'I:;, 1': .// '7";"-:/,~,/I('"",f ,,/// /,' ,"'> /Iv I', / /\ "\__~_ ___ $I,-".J! "..'1' 'iL-"..-"'~. .1J'~~;!I/.:./:;-\~~,j~' / /--7-' , _ _ , '~L-'-" _ ,'I c..",,=.' /' //1 ,{.)j' ',- ('.", ' /' / \\j\ \ L \~;':'.~. ,111~} :-:::~,' . I. ';;<c;'.~fJ;J!:,;J, /;//' I//{'~';~:)/ .;//};,~,./"'l /. / // // /.>-\ " " .. ., . " ..,.r 'I / ,,,,,,,, ' "If;' I / ;: 'I;.;j . ; 11\ ",", {".." ,j>' W' " '1/ ';.'" ,,1""/' ,. ,.' / '7' I ,~\ ",,{ I -' I : " Ii .~., I' ,\~:.-'1 ; ..,~ ~>}t-a,.":"''''''''---::J~/r '// ;f"~,,:.."'<l ,I. ;,I,::::~J . .' ! / I / .r, "e.. -I"" ,...~-c' Ie. " ,I' Ie,' ~ 'IJ" 1/. /~. ,"'Irf'.' . ;" " " I (I / I 1/ \ "'" )\\ \;1'" ,LI~' '0,'.:':"::1. ,'!-3"":';~/ :- / / -'~f.J/ /' /,:';' ~:t;,/. f"'>';'O>{ ..: !,l II . 1'/111/ / , t. \\,\~';_;_" ,.' .{. . . ,,_1 h,' / / //r-'~ 'O~I,' j..'-,~':>.:Z/ '- I ) - ""-.: /" "",pC"I."",I' ",./' ..,1 .. ... ",~." p",,:,, .,/, , I " . .. .' . ~ \~."'~ ~/ '" \ .. ,.' , ,/ /" ,O" . 1J" ',' /' ' ' , ' " n"./' \'" .",'. f ..j'" /., ' ."fIJ" "".,'../ / ' :' ' ,,., ; ,\ v:c\ (,ie",\' /. iJ ';' // ,/-.ir<' ,/,v'."i',V'" .. / / L "" "_;,,. ,,,,,,,.\,y ,I' . ,. ;' , ,J)\,r: ',"(f."j( ./" - c,,- c .j _' \\\ 'vo,",~~.\,.,..',:-.'-'r:./p//o?,:l ; ;' //'~""<:'!o.~::::"/' /.~0;'I'\:>,l~ /-":;< ~, J-- l .e> ~/" /, // '" . ,,' . ,,'" ' " ' ' . ,,-,i \\' \_::; ~/~/',\4 ,,,,,,/ ,..\0.,'/ ,'" ' ." ,,' ., ,,' ,"" .. ; ./' ..I -< ," ' ' ?'\~~/ .",s, >..;r-r;'" . .,; ,.. f" /' ,/ ' ,/ ~~.r ~",_:--_,''''' i' .. ,.,.1,', ,..,,/,,' . . . v/"';''' ,\ ,-' ",,\ /,,' .'" .' . ,,'~ . . .' .,"" ' ., . \ v?'" / .".'v' , . . . .. ,<, ,/' , /' '"J / .. / . ';'/Y'.':';.-1 "\ x: .,...". , . / //, . .,//J ~.-J< ' .- ;' / t.,""; ...:.)' ~y'y ., , , , / ~"'f ...{j c:f c-r , , , / , , , / , , , ----........... ......... N ':... CH:~l'llIt: ;;cw: -~'" , ~::'.;...~" l ... ( Source- R . uag . b en -Jen sen - Azar & Associates -l ",.O(!" 0," '... .,,--- , J // // ~ ............... Fallon C ' Figure 4 rOSSilla S' bite Plan significant cffects on the environment beyond those examined in the Program EIR for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan unless mitigation measures arc incorporated into the projcct or in the Conditions of Approval for the Project. A Mitigated Negative Dcelaration would be prepared because while some of the environmental impacts of this project were addressed by thc Final EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR (SCH #91103064, Eastern Dublin EIR or EDEIR) and addenda, scveral remaining envirorunental impacts specific to the project resulting from development of Fallon Crossing must be further addressed with the appropriate mitigation measures contained and detailed in this document. No impacts are associated with the annexation only of the Frcdrich property into the City of Dublin and DSRSD in conjunction with the annexation of Fallon Crossing. Development is not proposed for the Fredrich property at this timc. Therefore, there are no environmental impacts associated with the annexation only of this property into the City. When a development is proposed in the future for the Fredrich property, environmental analysis may be rcquired as recommended under CEQA. The Eastern Dublin EJR identified some impacts with the implcrnentation of the Gencral Plan Ameudment/Spccific Plan that could not be rcduced to a less than significant levcl. Scveral of the impacts that could not be reduced to less than significant levels were cumulative impacts such as the loss of agriculture and open space, Interstate 580 (1-580) and other regional traffic impacts, and air quality. Upon certification of thc Eastern Dublin EIR, the City adopted a statement of ovelTiding considerations for those unavoidable adverse impacts. Pursuant to the rcccnt Citizens for a Better Environment case, the City Council would be required to adopt a new Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and adversc impacts identified by the Eastern Dublin ELR that are applicable to Fallon Crossing. The City also adopted a mitigation- monitoring program, which ineludcd numerous measures intendcd to reduce impacts from the dcvelopment of the Eastcrn Dublin area, and the City proposes to adopt a Mitigated Ncgative Deelaration and revised Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project to address and inelude thosc mitigation mcasures specific to the Fallon Crossing in a separate document if and whcn the project is approved. Environmental Checklist Form Initial Study 1. Project Title: P A 04-16, Mission Peak Property/Standard Pacific Homes - Fallon Crossing Annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD Planned Development (PD) Prezoning, Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Agreemcnt, Vesting Tentativc Tract Map and Site Development Review; and Fredrich Property Annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD, Planned Developmcnt, Prezoning, Stage I Development Plan, and Annexation Agreement. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 9 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California, 94568 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner, (925) 833-6610 4. Project Location: Fallon Crossing is located north and east of thc intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road, within the East Dublin Specific Plan area (formerly 6847 Tassajara Road). The Fredrich parcel is located north and west of the intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road within the East Dublin Spccific Plan area, wcst of the Fallon Crossing project as shown previously in Figure 2, Vicinity Map. S. Assessors Parccl Number(s): Mission Peak Homes (Fallon Crossing) - 985-0002-001; Fredrich - 986-0004-002-03 6. Project sponsor's name and address: Standard Pacific Homes 7. General Plan Designation: Fallon Crossing - Single Family Residential (0.9 - 6.0 du/ac), Rural Residcntial/Agriculture (0.01 dll/ac), Stream COlTidor; Fredrich - Medium Density Residential (6.1 - 14.0 du/ac.), Gcncral Commercial. See Figure 5, Land Use Map. 8. Zoning: Agriculture (Alameda County) - both propcrties 9. Description of Project: The Fallon Crossing project consists of an Annexation to the City and Dublin San Ramon Scrvices District, Planned Development (PD) Prezoning and Stage I Development Plan, in conjunction and an Annexation Agreement with the City of Dublin to develop 103 homes on 19.5-acres of a 67.81 acrc site located on the Mission Pcak Propcrty, northeast of the intcrscction of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (north and adjacent to the Silvcra Ranch development). Additionally, a 7.93-acre parcel (Fredrich) located west of the Fallon Crossing project, west of Tassajara Road, is ineludcd in this annexation request. The scope of this revicw is sufficicnt to also apply to thc subsequcnt Stage 2 Planncd Development Rezoning and Development Plan for the Fallon Crossing projcct. Therc are no development plans proposed at this time for the Fredrich parcel. The Fredrich property is proposed for annexation only into thc City of Dublin and DSRSD in conjunction with the Fallon Crossing project. Standard Pacific Homes, is proposing to develop the Fallon Crossing project with 103 homes on 19.5-acres of a 67.8 acre site that is located on a piece of vacant propcrty known as Mission Peak. The project will be constructed in a single phase. The project proposes a linear approximately I.O-acre park along the northern area of the site, north of thc area proposed for residential development and adjacent to an unnamcd creek cOlTic1or. The park includes a pedestrian trail, sitting areas, small play arcas, and nativc landscaping. Thc park would providc passive recreation for project residents. Dublin Community Development Department 10 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 .", .,"- ~ oF 4J/j ~ ~/ 1 ~ 0<i>0 ,. "- 1,-/ ro~""" \ DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 19 ~: /1....'........... . "'''- .-' ................ ." ..., ... ~'\[ ~ . ,,~ / ~,,~ ./ 10~ / ~{e ~ nJ ..,.- ':4f , r' " o,r # v~ I~ ~~ ,- .Ii ...".......... :~ Western Extended Planning Area I:;' ,If .-.""",-, ~ #,-,#. "........... /'" : I l I l l I.... .... ... .......... ......... .......... ...... ...... LAND USE MAP (Figure 1- 1 a) as amended through December 7, 2004 . f' U g -I~ ,-"'\ , I ! ! i i ill~ . - ! ." -r "1. ..i ,'. i j IH'" t""''''',n. Pant, publf& &("OOlt II\C C"," hcr",.. I!i!n; ... "f"~ I....'. .. .'~' .'.' .0, '" .... \.. ""'- ,. 1'......,.1 Puhlk"/Spml-Pubfic::JOopn SDIIC'" Kc...,:."'...... ~ ~..rl~.c..- '''...,,, ~h CDMmf!r~tlll/JndwUrl'" _ G.n.ra1 ComM.rclRl Rf!:sidpntlal I.iD.U '.1...'.............1.",- 1_..._"'....."_.......1 ....~u......aI"\..'-. \. ,....-.1.,......,'....... :"1"-.....1_..'""-.1 "'.......n...._t.,,_.. Lo."t#'''-_,-,-t.;.. :.....'-'"'_l"..Ao:,,"'~.~_ ".t.....""""k..._ r>\J,l ,:~.., I' I.......:'......".., ...,1.....\,........ I \I':".H.",~I...''''U""__",,,,,,, I: .......'W4"o)........ I. ,.,....,.W-........f II I..~"........I............. ,...... n h......,.~.lo-: I. .."..,""'.,:............1.....1..."',.. ,. \Ua. ..,....:.. II ~".....h... ,.._......... ,- ":_.....h. ;,0 ''''',,''--'1..'_-... :. .... ~..~I........._..b. :: ~..,.. .to"~_.~....'.,.... :0 L."", ;. ..o..r-........".' __... :~-I- ':-~\~..r"" 1\.1'..'.......- :0 I_........apr-... loll....oc":-.. I...Nr'-_. _. :f>:....,,).....,_..':a.,.~I...... '01:. :,.ttrl'"- ................11-'....,.._.._ ., ~w..r..~.....l. II !"'t. 1__ "'--" ,. I' t....)o.f...~...'..t ...~r~\...... t' ;,d...l"Io.o-rft..~'-l:_PU'Jrut..1 " ,.....--. ;'. ....... J.o. .~... ~ \'.. ..........t ..... ~.'. ~ ,. t "....'1 .. fH.,....t.:.: .....~_.f.& ..'';'' 111"-". .....:,..!. .,.. ."..... ...... .....-.....1..._"""_ v..l_' .'.:. ......,;.. ..... ... :.... ...."., fk' \I,--,,,"..t Retail Of'nce 11II41 AVlomott.,. : ~:'" II.. -:ti..., .: . . f. I -..'r.-.-.'.''\. . .........1.- ..-........... T.--...... .. ............. .. ...... ,.....,.,._ ........f.....1' ...... '111".' ~.....,.' :... ul [I.""'........ S:"~; J.. :..f'.;' t4~- :,..,. ">01:' ~ 1iti...,. .' Rtf'" Oft'lce II:: N~MIOfhOod Commttdol C C"",~o ome. _lndUtfrtalPIII1I _ Buolnn. Parkllndulttlll _ Buo'n... PlII1IIIndultrtll Oftd OUtdoor etol"Og. _ Indultttal PanlCarnpul Otnu .).. ~.,. I.'. ~ . ; .. '1>" "S ....;-! :,.~;. " :- t-.:'. ~ tI ~, ., .. .'.f~''''l..t.~t.r... ~i."4~",':' 1::1<- .-..' ..,.......... ,.... ~,I'... .....,..... ..... . ... ..'_ '.' .,....1.... t''''. ...... ....~ M', .... ...... ..14:........... S' h.....fo.,j=..;~. , '.... }:v.... . 4':'- ..,. ~ t ~ 1 :. ". ...... '_...'1 ..Il...... ..... I.M. .'....., ~~".. ~. C:--.. :.r,-. "'! ,~~,:,:,..,C( '1 . U fl..1"'"'" r... CCI:M--S'IC' c:... .. :..1' r..:. " .: :.1,.... _ .... . -~ t,.~. ."'.""'1 ,.. ::.,,:.~. _ -:. ~".~" .... JC": :: .~.~; '.' . ..-' ...-.. . r-'~ .... .......... .," ,.... .........., . '.............. ..-........"..,.....,... ". ~ .. . ...I' ....... I ." .... ..~..,.,. .. ..,'1..' r I. _ ...........' .. I..... . Il-a. '''. .......... ................. .. J.._..... ...... ....-.'.;-..'-..., I. ,......'11..1..... .. I.. .... ',',_ ........ ~-:-." -......_........ . S:'<<>>- C:'r.~.., lI.dlumIHlgh.O.nllty Rnldontlll ond RI1&U omc. _ OeneRl Co".",.rclaUCllftpul Of'I"Iu ....n... ....;.... ."..,.01>....... .~.. .........~._.....,....._. ,......................r......L...,."........r. .., .t.~."'..__ ............'....... rl--;.... ~\l': .. ."".::' M'." U.. \\1_ .........'..11...1-.1... \I"...".,....."........"'T"...... ..h....'..._..._.4...._.........~_... ..... .... ....-... '--r.' 11.11_......'. L r..,I\t'O"'O;~ ~:I~~" Source: City of Dublin Figure 5 Land Use Map Grading will bc required to providc suitable building pads, interior roads, etc. Some off- site grading on the propcrty south of the site will be required to grade an existing hillside to meet the slope ratio rcquired by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Other on-site hillside grading will also be required to provide suitable slope ratios and COlTect soil conditions. Thc grading of the hillsides will incorporate contour grading to match cxisting topography as much as possible and minimizc extensive cuts and fills. A detcntion basin system is proposed in the northern area of the sitc, north of the 1.0- acre park. All surface water TImoff from the developed areas of the site would be discharged into the proposed on-site retention basin. The rctention basin is designed to capture runoff from thc project and measures approximately 50 fect wide by 100 feet long. Thc retention basin will bc maintained on a ycarly basis for sediment rcmoval. A pond adjacent to the retention basin will serve as a water quality pond to improve thc quality of the surfacc water collected from the retention basin prior to the discharge of surfacc water into the unnamed strcam along the.northern project boundary. The water quality pond is approximately 0.14 acrcs in size and designed to support California red- lcgged frog breeding. The water quality pond will not be maintaincd for sediment or vegetation removal, but rather left in its existing condition. Water that is discharged from the retention basin and water quality pond would be directed to an mmamed creek north of the basin. The unnamed stream is tributary to Tassajara Creek, which is located west of Tassajara Road. The watcr will be discharged into the creck through an outfall structure. The outfall stmcture is a 9foot by 20 foot by 12- foot concrcte structure. Shect pilings will be installed abovc the ordinary high watcr line of thc unnanied creck to provide a footing for the outfall. The concrete chambers will dissipate watcr velocity from stonn water discharges. Onc chamber includes rock and '!t ton riprap to slow water flow as it enters the creek channel at the ordinary high water line. A rock riprap protection apron and coir fabric will be provided below the high watcr line. Bank protection material will be installed over a 15 foot wide length of channel and cxtcnd 5 feet below the ordinary high water line. The dimensions of thc rock rip rap are 15 feet by 5 feet by 3 feet. Additional work associated with the outfall structure includes the construction of an underground cu1vcrt from the water quality pond to outfall structure. This underground trench will require thc cxcavation of a trcnch that measures approximatcly 15 feet long, 4 fect wide, and 6 feet deep from the edge of the riparian drip line to the outfall structurc. A 200-foot sctback is proposed from the California red-legged frog pond in thc northeast portion of the site to the proposed residences elosest to the pond. The 200-foot area around thc pond will be fenced and posted to discouragc unauthorized entry. Watcr will be provided to the project with a westerly extension of an existing Zone 7 water line in Fallon Road that cunently tern1inates at the Silvera Ranch project. Silvera Ranch is adjacent to and south of Fallon Crossing. The watcr line will be extended from its present location westerly to the intcrsection of Fallon Road and Tassajara Road. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anl1cxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 12 Wastewater service will be provided to the project with the extension of an existing sanitary sewer line in Tassajara Road at Silvera Ranch Drive south of the site. The 10- inch sanitary sewer line will be extended to the intersection of Fallon Road with Tassajara Road to serve the project. Wastewater from the project will gravity flow from the site into the 1 O-inch sanitary sewcr line in Tassajara Road. Tassajara Road is designated as a scenic con"idor by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As such, the project will be required to provide measures to protect the scenic qualities of the site from Tassajara Road. The Fallon Crossing project proposcs to maintain approximately 46.8 acres of open space. A large area of the open space will include the hills located throughout the castern portion of the site. Thcrc are two manllladc ponds on the site; one was constmcted for the preservation of the California red-legged frog and a second for the California Tiger Salamander. Both ponds will be preserved in their existing condition with the project. The proposcd project is located in Alameda County, but entirely within the East Dublin Specific Plan Area as adopted in January 1996 by the City of Dublin City Council. The applicant has requested annexation into the City of Dublin through the Local Agency Forn1ation Commission (LAFCO) as the property lics outside but contiguous with the incorporated City boundary. Government Code section 65457 provides that any residential project that is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has bccn certified is exempt from CEQA, unless additional spccific infOlmation and study is required. The City has prepared this Initial Study, dated February 6, 2006, for the project to determine whether there would be additional environmental impacts OCCUlTing as a rcsult of this project beyond or different from those already addressee! in the prior Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ane! Gcneral Plan Amendl11ent, ae!optcd in 1994, ane! subsequent amendment (further details are ineludcd in the Summary scction below). The project also ineludes the annexation of the Fredrich property into Dublin. The Fredrich property is located adjacent to and west of Tassajara Road and totals approximately 7.93 acres. There are no development plans for the Fredrich property at this time. The future development of the Fredrich property will require a Stage 2 dcvelopment plan, prezoning and environmental review more specific to the proposed development of the site. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describc the project's surroundings: The Fallon Crossing project is located north and adjaccnt to the Silvera Ranch residential subdivision, which is currently under construction. Other sunounding land uses includc Dublin Community Development Department 13 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 vacant agricultural land to the north and east, Tassajara Road adjacent to and west of the site and the Fredrich parcel west of Tassajara Road. North, west and south of the Fredrich parcel is vacant agriculture/open space property, including Wallis Ranch that was recently annexed to the City and approved for residential development by the City (P A02-028). East of the Fredrich property is Tassajara Road and east of Tassajara Road is the proposcd Fallon Crossing project site. 11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: Annexation of both parcels requires approval by the Alameda County LAFCO. In addition, both properties must be annexed into the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) and the Dublin Unified School District. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors chcckcd below would be potentially affected by this project and were not examined in the Program EIR, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Agriculturc Resources D Air Quality D Biological Resources D Cultural Resources D Gcology /Soils D Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Hydrology / Water Quality D Land Use / Planning D Mineral Resources D Noise D Population / Housing D Public Scrvices D Recreation D Transportation/Traffic D Utilities / Service Systems [] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On thc basis of this initial evaluation: D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prcpared. D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT havc a significant effect on the cnvironmcnt anclthat a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would NOT BE REQUIRED because, pursuant to Section 65457 (a) of the Government Codc, this residential developmcnt is undertaken to implement and is consistent with thc Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified after January I, 1980 and is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. No event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code has occurrcd. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envirolllilcnt, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationlPrczoning PA 04-16 15 D ~ D project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potcntially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigatcd" impact on the environment, but at lcast one effect I) has bcen adequately analyzcd in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has bcen addrcssed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached shects. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addresscd and will inelude additional mitigation mcasures as appropriate. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, bccause all potentially significant cffects (a) have becn analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that carlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measurcs that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature February 13, 2006 Date Janet Harbin, Senior Planner Printed name City of Dublin For Environmental Impacts. The source of determination is listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to detcl111ine each potential impact at thc end of the checklist. A full discussion of each itcm is found following the checklist beginning on page 30. Dublin Community Development Department Mission PeaklFredrich Properties Annexatiori/Prezoning PA04-16 16 I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial advcrse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 9) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a statc scenic highway? (Source: 2, 9) c) Substantially degrade thc existing visual character or quality of thc site and surroundings? (Source: 2, 9) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2, 9) II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whethcr impacts to agricultural resources arc significant environmental effects, lead agcncies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Califi.lrnia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agricuIturc and fannland. Would thc project: a) Convcrt Prime Farmland, Unique Farnlland, or Farmland of Statcwide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Fmmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 2, 3, 9) b) ConDict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sourcc: 2, 3, 9) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to thcir location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Source: 2, 9) Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X X 17 III. AIR OUALITY Where available, the significancc criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to makc the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3,9) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projccted air quality violation? (Source: 3, 9) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the projcct region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone prccursors)? (Source: 3, 9) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2, 3, 9) e) Create objcctionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 2, 3, 9) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any speCles identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or rcgulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2,3,9,10-15) b) Havc a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural conU1ll1nity identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2,3,9,10-15) Dublin Community Development Deparhnent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact . X X X X X X X 18 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other mcans? (Source: 2, 3, 9,10-15) d) Interfere substantially with thc movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native rcsident or migratory wildlife conidors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3, 9,10-15) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a trce prcservation policy or ordinance? (Source: 2, 3, 9, I 0- 15) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or statc habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2, 3, 9, I 0-15) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the si!,'11ificanee of a historical resource as defined in * 15064.5? (Source: 2,3, 9) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archacological resource pursuant to *15064.5'1 (Source: 2,3, 9) c) Dircctly or indirectly destroy a umquc paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2,3, 9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those . intened outside of formal cemeteries? (Source: 2,3, 9) VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potcntial substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Dublin Conmlunity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Allnexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X 19 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Source: ],2,3,9) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Source: ],2,3,9) iii) Scismic-related liquefaction? (Source: failure, ground ],2,3,9) including iv) Lands]ides? (Source: 1,2,3,9) b) Result in substantial soil crOSlOn or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 1,2,3,9) c) Be locatcd 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, subsidencc, liquefaction or collapse? (Sourcc: 1,2,3,9) d) Bc located on cxpansivc soil, as defined in Table 18-]-B of the Unif01111 Building Code (1994), creating substantia] risks to life or property? (Source: ],2,3,9) c) Have soils incapable of adcquately supporting the use of septic tanks or a]temative wastewater disposal systems where sewcrs arc not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1,2,3,9) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or th environment through the routine transport, use, 0 disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 2, 3, 9) b) Create a significant hazard to thc public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into thc environment? (Source: 2, 3, 9) '-- Dublin Community Development Deparhnent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X e X X 20 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutcly hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quartcr mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 1,3,9) d) Be located on a sitc which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the cnvironment? (Source: I, 3, 9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in thc projcct area? (Source: I, 3, 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the projcct result in a safety hazard for peoplc rcsiding or working in the project area? (Source: 1,3,9) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfcre with an adopted emergency response plan or cmergency evacuation plan? (Source: 1, 2, 3, 9) h) Expose people or structurcs to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 2, 9) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3, 9) Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X X 21 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that thcre would be a net dcficit in aquifer volumc or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 2,3,9) e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or arca, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3, 9) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the sitc or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? (Source: 2, 3, 9) c) Crcate or contribute runoff that would cxeeed the capacity of existing or planned storn1 water drainagc systcms or provide substantial additional sourccs of polluted runoff! (Sourcc: 2, 3, 9) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2, 3, 9) g) Place housing within a I DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 2, 3, 9) h) Place within a I DO-year flood hazard area structures that would impcde or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2, 3, 9) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam') (Source: 1,3,9) Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnncxationlPrezoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially wilh Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X 22 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (Source: I, 9) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the projcct: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,2,3,4,5,9) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, spccific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sourcc: 1,2,3, 4,5,9) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conscrvation plan? (Source: 1,3,4,5,9) X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the projcct: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to thc region and the rcsidents of the statc? (Sourcc: 2, 3, 9) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource rccovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2, 3, 9) XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of pcrsons to or generation of noisc levels in exccss of standards cstablished in the local gencral plan or noise ordinancc, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2, 4, 9) b) Exposure of persons to or gClleration of exccssive ground borne vibration or ground borne noisc levels? (Source: 2,4, 9) c) A substantial permanent increasc in ambient noise levels in thc project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2,4,9) Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impacl X X X X X X X X X 23 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levcls existing without the project? (Source: 2, 4, 9) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levcls? (Source: I, 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sourcc: 1, 9) XII. POPULA nON AND HOUSING- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)'! (Source: 3,9) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 2, 3, 9) c) Displace substantial numbers necessitating the construction of housing elsewherc? (Sourcc: 2, 3, 9) of people, replacement XlII. PUBLIC SERVICES - a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmcntal facilities, need [or new or physically altered govemmental [acilitics, the construction of which could cause significant cnvironmenta1 impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other per[onnance objectives for any of thc public serVICes: Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationJPrezoning PA04-16 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X 24 Fire Protection'! (Source: 2, 3, 9) Police Protection? (Source: 3, 9) Schools? (Source: 3, 9) Parks? (Sourcc: 3,4,9) Other Public Facilities? (Source: 2, 3, 9) XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the usc of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational faci1itics such that substantial physical deterioration of thc facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 2, 3, 9) b) Does the project include recrcational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facil1ties, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,3,9) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would thc project: a) Cause an incrcase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.c., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2, 3, 9, 7) b) Excccd, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 2, 3, 9, 7) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 1, 9) d) Substantially increase hazards due feature (e.g., sharp curves or intersections) or incompatible uses equipment)? (Source: 2, 3, 9, 7) to a design dangerous (e.g., farm e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Source: 2,3,9) Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 x X X X X X X X X X X X 25 1) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 2, 3,5,9) g) Conflict with adoptcd policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source: 2, 3, 9) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 3, 9) b) Require or rcsult in thc construction of new water or wastewater treatment facillties or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2, 3,6,9) c) Requirc or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of cxisting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2, 3, 9) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 6) c) Result in a dctemlination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that 1t has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing conmlitments? (Source: 3,9) 1) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 3, 9) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and rcgulations related to solid waste? (Source: 3,9) Dublin COI1U11Unity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 x X X X X X X X X 26 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE- x X X a) Does the project have the potential to degradc the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife specics, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Source: 2, 3, 9,10-15) b) Docs the project havc impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" mcans that the incremental cffccts of a project are considerablc when viewed in connection with the effects of past projccts, the effects of othcr CUlTent projects, and thc effects of probable futurc projects)? (Source: 3, 9) c) Does the project havc environmental effects, which would cause substantial advcrse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Source: 2, 3, 9) Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts: 1. Dctcrmination based on location of project. 2. Site Visit 3. Dctcrmination based on Staff project review. 4. Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan. 5. Dctcnnination based on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 6. Water Service Analysis and Water Supply Assessment, West Yost & Associates, August 6, 2004. 7. A Traffic Study for thc Proposed Fallon Crossings Development, TJKM Transp0l1ation Consultants August 15,2005. 8. Communication with appropriate City or Agency personnel. 9. Program EIR for Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (SCH# 91103064) and addenda. 10. Mission Peak Development Project Biological Assessment, California Red-Legged Frog & Califomia Tiger Salamandcr, Olberding Environmental, Inc., July 2004. II. Streambed Alteration Agreement Application, Mission Peak Development Project, Olberding Environmental, Inc., July 2004. 12. Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Permit Application, Mission Peak Dcvelopment Project, Olberding Environn1ental, Inc., July 2004 Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 27 13. U.S. Anny Corps of Enginccrs Pre-Construction Notification, Mission Peak Development Project, Olberding Environmental, Inc., July 2004. 14. Biological Rcsources Analysis, Mission Peak Property, Olberding Environmental, Inc. July 2004. 15. California Tiger Salamander Assessment, Mission Peak Property, Olberding Environmental, Inc., October 3, 2003. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 28 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES AND ANALYSIS The following discussion includes explanations of answers to the above questions regarding potential environmental impacts, as indicated on the preceding checklist. Each subsection is amlOtated with the number cOlTesponding to the checklist fornl. Attachment to Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties/Standard Pacific Homes - Fallon Crossing Initial Study - Discussion of Checklist Responses PA 04-016 EXISTING SETTING: The project area totals approximately 75.l8-acres and is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. The project includes two separate parcels: the 7.93-acre Fredrich parcel that is located adjaccnt to and west of Tassajara Road; and the 67.81-acre Fallon Crossing parcel that is locatcd adjacent to and east of Tassajara Road. The two prope.rties are adjacent to and separated by Tassajara Road. As stated in the Project Description, the Fallon Crossing project is slllTounded by undeveloped open space/grazing land north and east of site, the Silvera Ranch residential dcvelopment that is cUHently under construction to the south, Tassajara Road on the wcst and vacant open spacc west of Tassajara Road. The Fredrich property is surroundcd by a singlc-family rcsidence and open space to thc north, pasture land and open space associated with the proposed Fallon Crossing rcsidential project to the east, open space to the south, and open space/grazing land to the west. The project site is located in an area that is transitioning from vacant open space and agricultural use (cattle grazing) to urbanization, including residential development. The path of development is from south of thc site and moving in a northerly direction along both sides of Tassajara Road. The project site is located at the northern end of the CUlTcnt residential development activity. Tassajara Road is adjacent to and west of the Fallon Crossing project and exists as a two-lane road. Tassajara Road is being improved and widened south of thc project sitc in conjunction with the Silvcra Ranch and other dcvelopment to the south. The site is located at the northern end of the East Dublin Specific Plan, which consists of approximately 3,300 acres. Jt is outside the Dublin city limit, but within its Sphere oflnfluence. The boundary between Alamcda and Contra Costa counties is approximately one mile to the north. The project site is characterized by flat and gently sloping areas near Tassajara Road and the creek along tbe n0l1hem project boundary with transitions to stecper hills in the north and cast portions of the site. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 29 Discussion of Checklist/Legend PS: LS/M: LS: NI: Potentially Significant Inlpact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant impact No Impact or No Impact beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR I. AESTHETICS Environmental Setting The 75.18-acre atmexation arca ineludes the 67.81-acre Fallon Crossing project and the 7.93-acre Fredrich propcl1y. The properties are located in a rural area of East Dublin that is being developed consistent with City adopted general and specific plans. Both properties are vacant, except for a rural rcsidcnce on the Fredrich parcel. Thc Fallon Crossing sitc is presently used for cattle grazing. A northern unnamed tributary drainage course extends along the northwest projcct boundary of the Fallon Crossing site. This tributary passes undcr Tassajara Road along the southern boundary of the Fredrich property and intersects with Tassajara Crcek west of the Fredrich propel1y. Photographs of the Fallon Crossing and Frcdrich parcels are shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8. The Fallon Crossing site is characterized by moderate to stecply sloping terrain with slopes ranging from 5% in the area adjaccnt to and east of the unnamed creek along the northwest project boundary to more than 50% on the upper ridge along the north and east project boundary. The topography on. the sitc ranges from 450 feet above sca level at the bottom of the creek to approximately 705 feet at the top of the northern ridge. The more gentle slopes are located closest to and east of Tassajara Road with the stccper slopcs located ncar the middle and eastern portion of the sitc. Figure 9 shows the existing topography ofthc Fallon Crossing sitc. The ridgelines within the eastern sections of the site are designatcd in the General Plan and Specific Plan as Visually Sensitive Ridgelines with No Dcvelopment and Visually Sensitive Ridgelincs with Restricted Dcvelopment. Visually Sensitivc Ridgelincs with Restricted Devclopmcnt allow development with ccrtain restrictions. 1 Tassajara Road is designated as a Scenic Corridor by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards (Scenic Corridor Plan), adopted in April 1996. The Fredrich property and the west portion of the Fallon Crossing are located in Zone 4 of the "Tassajara Village Center" area of the Sccnic COlTidor Plan. The Scenic COlTidor Plan seeks to maintain view cOITidors to surrounding knolls by clustering development. 1 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Updated November], 2002, page 107. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 30 ?~- 1 \ \ , I ~,,;"r ';it; .. - .f .~?ll Photograph 1: Looking northeasterly across the Fallon Crossing site from Tassajara Road. ~ ~ I Fallon Crossing i i ..... ... '\\fl~- ~-':"~B? -J'- ~~lI.z - l"ii;r~l~.L ,_.~ :f,~ .~.~~a< f+~t,... t . . _~..a.. -' --- ;;. ,- ~ *'-' ..,-;. ~~'~- ",":l: :~. _...... _ r - Road 1assa\ara ... - 'L ...-:=-:- ~ ~",,,.. - Photograph 2: Looking northeast from Tassajara Road at the Fredrich Property. Source: Phil Martin & Associates July 2005 Figu re 6 Site Photographs Unnamed Tributary I Fallon Crossing 01i:ta ..' ~ ~ '..._- -~ -~ 1\ -~f 'I 't. - ~ - -- jr- .1 U .1 If" " ~.......-~ ....,. ': .... .-.-',.-:c..., . .....0.:-; .~'r--' ..., ~ '~... --"-'~~\. ~D':'\ i \ - ~ ~ Photograph 3: Looking east from Tassajara Road along the northerly project boundary. The unnamed tributary is on the left. .1 Fallon Crossing Site " "pt.. ! f"' +,'if "'~J\ , :,"', "-';-~.v ", ,. . ~ "'.., ';i':-t \'~'. . ~ Jr \ , /, Ii r 6- ~o'lj, . 'lJ.~'l> ~'l> ') '\ 'l>~ l' 2I'~::' "L~. , , ".'~ ".. ~'. . ~ ,. ~~~~~ ...' '"j--:: ,.k. ,'.'.' l; "", r ~ ' -:- f ' ~ -, ... ~.; ...~. ._" - - ' Photograph 4: Looking northerly from Tassajara Road at the westerly portion of the Fallon Crossing site. Source: Phil Martin & Associates July 2005 Figure 7 Site Photographs ~ .". ~ ..'''''" .~ t,"' . ..'~.. ,..". ,~ '. .~ .... ..J .", 'ri ~. _~~~'~..-;..r~~~" !< ---....--..-....~ g, ---",-- = Photograph 6: Looking west from Tassajara Road at the Fredrich property. Source: Phil Maliin & Associates July 2005 Figure 8 Site Photographs , . . . "-' /'.....: S;w;nga ~ \ ." \';-' "" ~ 'J:,. '--.: , -S',/ ~,~~ / 1\1 l. 1. ~ ~~ .-..... "- COP- 'i .,",-O-:,'t~O'" i: cQ~~~,.~~,.,. c I ;...,., ~~V' " -/ .1!3 ,.. '" ,.;! ~~ 2 ~ ~ Source: 2001 USGS Topographic Maps and Phil Martin & Associates, 2005 Figure 9 USGS Topographic Map Regulatory Framework General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan General Plan The land uses proposed for both thc Fallon Crossing and Fredrich properties by the Dublin General Plan wcrc shown previously in Figure 5. Scenic COlTidors Tassajara Road is a designatcd scenic cOlTidor by the City of Dublin General Plan. The principal element contributing to the scenic character is the sweeping panorama of thc foothills and the rural landscape. Thc highest elevations on the site are located along the eastern boundary of the site and form the backdrop of the site from Tassajara Road. The elevation of Fallon Crossing at Tassajara Road is approximately 470 feet above sea level and rises gradually to the east to the highest elevation on the site, which is approximately 705 fect abovc sea levcI. The site is used for cattle grazing and is esscntially vacant. The site is covered with grassland for thc most part, exccpt for the trees and riparian habitat associated with thc unnamed stream along the northern project boundary. Fallon Road is to be designated a scenic corridor, according to the Dublin General Plan, after thc connection between Tassajara and Fallon Road is constructed (Policy 5.6.A). Specific Plan The land use designations for the properties designated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are shown in Figurc 10. The natural resources of the Fallon Crossing site and thc policies of the Speci fie Plan to protect and prcscrve the visual resourccs are listed below: Open Space Po Iicy 6- I: Establish a continuous open space network that integrates large natural open space areas, stream corridors, and developed parks and recreation areas; Policy 6-2: Locate development so that largc, continuous opcn space areas/corridors are preserved. Avoid creating open spacc islands. Encourage single loadcd streets in areas adj acent to open spacc, rural residential, and agricultural lands. Open S pace Access Policy 6-3: Provide convenient access from dcvcloped areas to designated open space arc as and trails. Emphasize pedestrian connections between developed and natural areas; Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 3S \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u u ~ ~ 3 ~ u ~ " 'tJ ~ ~ 0 q ~ '0 -6 X : ! " ~ 0 cd :! ~ ;; <; ~ ;; e. ! ...j E uoo ~'f <~~ ii2~ ~~:..., ~ ~~~; ~bf~ if "gil ~ogo~ nt'E~f.00,f~~ ; ~~8~~ J~~!t~m::g;0 :J.!i~~ ~~~.2.cesg:fi.~~i {) .OIlll'tJ UJ.g~g':Q ..O;;:Q a: ~zu= {j) a..w..,... ~ ZZOvO !~~~~ ~1~~~!mm~@D z ::i a:I ::::l c Q III zO: a: u w::: I- '(j C/)CI) ~a. wc/) Q. III ::& II .. ;:) '1:1 C III .... I.. ! 1 h. 1_ 1.t.. eO. .. :;J~'S ~ :;> T 0 J ~ jJ ~. 1 i f Jill! 011111 -, ~ ~ t. < .... .u ll.l ..... e =- , ..r' r..-:-.-.;-:-o..- ....-:.. . ... ,. ." . .., ... . .. .. , ,. ....... ..... . I... . . . . . . . 1. . I... - I.... . \ \ \ \ \ '. \ <::> Q. ... Ol " ~ .. = " 1>1)'" ~;:J ." = Ol ...l = Ol - =- ... 10: .. ... " ".< C. U "'- JUf &J!j ~ '2 0 .- ! i '2 . 0 ;; i ;; , E 0 0 . u ;; .Ii . ;; j ~ 0 . u .; .!i < ~ !II ~ . . ! . " : .0 . ~ 0 .c 2 i , ~ .. - ! j o .1 N . . 0 . J E .. I 0 i . D S ~ . " ! i < s .. . ~ ~ ." 0 .. ." ~ .~ ~ ~ " ! E ~ . o(l . .. :c . ~ '" S> ~ ..... ~ , .. . ;;; " E J:> :i . ~ '" ~ a:: . ... E S " E ... 0 1: Ol " . - i ~ ~ 0 0 . " " '" ** " ... * .. = '" "'- Policy 6-4: Preserve views of designated open space areas; Policy 6-5: Ensure adequate access to open space areas for maintenance and management purposes. Ownership and Maintenance Policy 6-6 Establish a mechanism for ownership, management and maintenancc of open space areas in eastern Dublin, prior to final map approvals. Private Development Areas Policy 6-8: Designate undeveloped arcas within individual developments as private open space, with management and maintenance responsibilitics resting with thc individual landowners or homeowners association. Natural Resource Protection Strcam COlTidors and Wetlands Policy 6-9: Natural stream cOlTidors, ponds springs, seeps, and wetland areas shall be preserved wherever possible. Prior to submittal of development applications, the appropriate agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game and the Arn1Y Corps of Engineers must be consulted to determinc whether they have jurisdiction over the watercourse or wetland area. Policy 6-10: Riparian and wctland areas shall be incorporated into greenbelt and open space areas as a means of preserving their hydrologic and habitat value. Unavoidable loss of riparian habitat duc to development should be replaccd with similar habitat on a 3:1 in kind basis. Loss ofwctlands must be mitigated consistent with the COE's (U.S. A1TW Corps of Engineers) current policy. Policy 6- I I: All strcam corridors shall be revegetated with native plant specics to enhance thcir natural appearance and improve habitat valucs. Revegetation must be implcmented by a professional revegetation specialist. Policy 6-12: Maintain natural open stream channels to carry storm runoff wherever feasible, rathcr than replacing with underground storm drainage systems. When extra capacity is necessary, retention basins are prcfcrable to channelization, if the channelization would disturb riparian habitat. When charll1elization is necessary, the channcl should be designed and constructed to accommodatc both the projected flows and the growth of riparian vegetation, and to have more natural-appearing contours. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Propcriies Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 37 Flood control maintenance practices would be designed and performed to be responsive to public safety while preserving the unique riparian community. Maintenance agreements (mcmoranda of understanding) between the City and responsible agencics would addrcss, but not be limited to, site access, criteria for determining the need for maintenance (i.e. assessment and monitoring), and the timing and frequency of actual maintenance practices. Policy 6-13: Establish a stream conidor system, which provides multi-purposc opcn space con-idors capable of accommodating wildlife and pedestrian circulation. In order to facilitatc the usc of these corridors by both humans and wildlife, human activities (e.g.) trails should be limited to onc side of the stream. Policy 6-14: Enhancc public enjoyment and visibility of stream corridors by avoiding, or minimizing, dcvelopment that backs directly onto the stream corridor, and ensure safe public access to stream cOlTidors by providing frcqucnt access points within each development area. Visual Resources The hillsides of eastern Dublin afford an excellent opportunity to establish a strong visual identity for the new community and dcfine an eastern and northern boundary for Dublin. For this reason, retaining the natural character of the foothill landfonns and preserving the sense of openness that cUlTently characterizes the area are important objectivcs of the General and Specific Plans. In addition, the opcn and relatively sparse character of the planning area landscape makes each stand of trecs or each stream or body of water a significant visual element. For this reason the Plan also seeks to preserve those fcw other landscape features that distinguish the planning area, specifically the creeks, drainage ways, and existing tree stands.' Policy 6-28: Preserve the natural open beauty of the hills and other important visual resources, such as creeks, and major stands of vegetation. In addition to preserving views of the hills from Tassajara Road, which is adjacent to and west of the site and fonns thc wcst project boundary, as well as views from the west and develop cd portion of the site, it is imperative that high-quality, atlractivc development occurs along Tassajara Road if Dublin is going to create a positive impression for the millions of travelers who would pass by or through the area annually3 The policies applicable to the project that are designed to protect Tassajara Road as a scenic corridor include: 'Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, January 7,1994, Updated to November 1, 2002, page 106,6.3.4 Visual Resources. 3 Final Eastem Dublin Specific Plan, January 7, 1994, Updated to November 1,2002, page 108, 6.3.4 Visual Resources. Dublin Community Development Dcparhllent 38 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Policy 6-29 Development is not pClmittcd on the main ridgeline that borders the planning area to the north and east, but may be pelmitted on the foreground hills and ridgelands. Minor interruptions of vicws of the main ridgeline by individual building masses may be pern1issible in Iimitcd circumstances where all other remedies have been exhausted. Policy 6-30 Structures built near designated scenic corridors shall be located so that views of the back-drop ridge (identified in Figure 9 as "visually sensitive ridgelands - no development") are generally maintained when viewed from the scenic corridors. Policy 6-31 High quality design and visual character would be required for all development visiblc from dcsignated scenic cOlTidors. Hillside Developmcnt In hilly but dcvelopable areas, the Specific Plan places restrictions on hillside development to preserve the natural character of the hills. Hillside development and grading, not properly regulated, would severely compromise the visual quality of the plmming area, as wcll as contributc to slope stability and safcty concerns. With this is mind, the Plan designates the majority of the devclopment for the flatter portions of the area and in areas with limited visibility from other developed areas and major travel cOITidors4 The policies to protect hillside development include': Policy 6-32: Visual impacts of extensive grading shall be reduced by sensitivc cnginccring design, by using gradual transitions from graded areas to natural slopes and by revegctation. Policy 6-33: Site grading and access roads shall maintain the natural appearance of the upper ridgelines or foreground hills within the viewshed of travelers along 1- 580, Tassajara Road, and the future extension of Fallon Road. Streets should be aligned to follow the natural contours of the hillsidcs. Straight, linear rows of streets across the face of hillsides shall be avoided. Policy 6-34: Alterations of existing natural contours shall be minimized. Grading shall maintain the natural topographic contours as much as possiblc. Grading bcyond actual dcvclopment arcas shall be for remedial purposes only. Policy 6-35: Extensivc areas of flat grading are not appropriate in hillside areas, and should be avoided. Building pads should be graded individually or stepped, wherever 4 Ibid 'Ibid Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 39 possible. Structures and roadways should be designed m response to the topographical and geotechnical conditions. Policy 6-36: Building design shall confornl to the natural land fonn as much as possible. Techniques such as multi-level foundations, rooDines, which compliment thc sUlTounding slopes and topography, and variations in vertical massing to avoid a monotonous or linear appearance should be used. In areas of steep topography, structures should be sited near the street to minimize required grading. Policy 6-37: Graded slopes shall bc re-contoured to resemble eXlstmg landforms m the immediate areas. Cut and graded slopes shall be revegetatcd with native vegetation suitable to hillside environnlents. Policy 6-38: The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized to the greatest degree possible. Grades for cut and fill slopes should be 3: I or less whenevcr feasible. Tassajara Creek and Other Internlittent Streams In addition to the foothills, the kcy visual elements in the planning area are Tassajara Creek and the other intermittent streams that flow through thc area. Grazing and other agricultural activitics have degraded thc quality of the othcr streams in the areas, howcver, the isolated stands of vegetation associated with them still sets them apart as distinctive visual featurcs6 Policy 6-39: Tassajara Creek and other strcam cOlTidors, as shown previously in Figure 8 are visual fcatures that have special scenic value for the planning area. The visual charactcr of these cOlTidors should be protected from unnccessary alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to the stream cOlTidors. Based on the results of a field survey, several Corps regulated features were identified within the boundaries of the site. These features included an intennittent drainage chmmel, one perennial creek channel, two stock ponds, and two seep features. Figurc 11 shows these features on the site. These features can play an important role in establishing the character of the future community. The policies that are applicable to the protection of the hydrologic features on the Fallon Crossing site inelude policics 6-9 through 6-14, presented earlier in this section. The Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan provides action programs to Managcment policies. The incorporation of and compliance with ensure the applicable policies are met by the project. implement these Resource the action programs would 6 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, page 109. Dublin Conununity Development Deparhnent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AIUlexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 40 Mi",loD Peak Prop~rtJ' bollkd Wetllnd Features bohuM1Wetllllld Fntture SQune ,~, A~r" Vegeu.tioD Legend: ,',I t I,HO 3,920 0.09 $..~p No , 23,522 0.54 $('ep No. 6,930 0.16 Pond No. t 9,380 22 Pond NO. 43,"752 ot ----- PropertyfWtlDdal')' 0"" Wat.. MIssion Puk Property Other Waten; Linear Average F~t Width ~ ~ ~ 1...laledWdlandt roT.. A~res IkKripoon H p Eas:: Fork TassaJara Creek roT" 1,460 0.41 Isolated DraillageSwak Minion Puk Property Isolated Drainage Swalel; Uncar Ave,..ge Feet Width A~res D6~rlption , 156 tt 0.04 Isolated Drain..ge Swale No. t m tt 0.07 Isolated Dnnnage Swale HQ. 2 '" 0 U roT" "I //~ " ,. 'Y, / ,/ '. Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates Figure 11 On Site Ponds and Sweeps Proi ect Impacts Thc Fallon Crossing project proposes 103 single-family residences at a density of 5.22 units per acre. The residential units are proposed for 19.5-acres of the site with a one-acre park as shown previously in Figure 4, Fallon Crossing site plan. The remaining 47.3 acres of the site would either be retained as existing open space or developed with a retention basin to collect and retain project gcnerated storm water before it is discharged into the unnamed creek. The 103 single- family rcsidences are proposed for the area of the site that is locatcd immediately east of Tassajara Road with the remaining acreage of the site as open space consistent with applicable and gcneral and specific plan land use designations. Developing thc p0l1ion of the site elosest to Tassajara Road allows the higher elevations of the sitc to remain undeveloped as vacant open spacc and natural habitat for wildlife. The project proposes to retain approximately 69% of the site in open spacc, which would protect existing views of the knolls in thc easterly half of the site from Tassajara Road. Protecting the knolls is consistent with the Scenic Corridor Plan, which is to minimize grading and dcvelopment impacts to the land and scenic vistas on this portion of the site and protect scenic views on the site from Tassajara Road and Fallon Road. The proj ect proposcs to integrate landscaping and contour grading for that portion of the 19.5 acres that are proposed for development. The grading of the hillside immediately east of the proposed rcsidences must be at 3:1 slopc to meet Hillside Development Policy 6-38 of thc East Dublin Specific Plan to preserve the natural character of the hills. The 3: I cut slope would provide a gradual transition between the residcntial area and thc natural slope to the east to minimize visual grading impacts. A 3:1 cut slope near the southeast corner of the site would bc required to provide building pads in this portion ofthc sitc. Some off-site grading on the Silvera Ranch property would be required, as shown on the site plan. The grading of the hillsides adjaccnt to and east of the arca proposed for the residences will be contourcd to match the existing topography as required by and consistent with the Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan. The projcct complies with Specific Plan policies 6-29 and 6-30, which don't pcnnit development on main ridgelincs and obstmct scenic views or appear to extcnd above an identified scenic ridge top whcn viewed from a designated scenic route. The project does not propose development on either of the ridgclines on the site. In addition, the homes will not extend above either scenic ridgeline on the site from Tassajara Road, which is a designated scenic routc by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Native landscaping and contour grading proposed for the site is consistent with Hillside Development Policy 6-37 of the East Dublin Specific Plan and would minimizc the aesthetic impacts of project grading by eliminating tall retaining walls and large areas of introduced landscaping. Rctaining walls are proposed for some of the residential lots due to topography differences. While some of the retaining walls are Icss than 6 feet in height, many of thc walls are less than four feet. The slopes are primarily under 30% slope with 1.5 acres in slopes over 30%, which conforms to Policy 6.42 of the Specific Plan, which is provided in the Environmental Setting of Dublin Community Development Departu1ent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationJPrezoning PA 04-16 42 Section VI Gcology and Soils. The Prezoning/Stage I Developmcnt Plan shows the proposed !,'rading would not be of a volume greater than allowed by the Specific Plan. The Fallon Crossing project would generate new sources of light and glare on the site compared to the existing condition. The light and glare generatcd by the residences would be similar in intcnsity to the residential dcvelopment that is under construction and exists adjacent to and south of the site. The project sitc, like thc adjacent sUlTounding area, is proposed for urban devclopment that includes light and glare. The light and glare by the project will not be greater than evaluated with urban development of the site as planned by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. All development would rcmain outside the golden eagle viewshed area as required by the Program EJR for the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Thc impacts to scenic vistas would be minimal based on the design ofthc project and compliance with policies 6-1- 6-6, 6-8-6-14, and 6-28-6-39 of the Specific Plan. No scenic rcsources, significant vegetation or, historic buildings would be impacted becausc there are none of thesc features on the property. The visual impact of thc project would be minimized by the use of rcsidential dcsign and landscaping that complies with thc Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan. Figures 12 and 13 show visual simulations of the project aftcr development from two locations on Tassajara Road. Figure 14 shows the locations of the simulation vicwpoints. As shown, a landscaped setback will be provided along the east side of Tassajara Road between the road and the first row of houses. Additionally, thc development proposes an opcn spacc buffer betwcen the housing development and the roadway, which will be improved with substantial vegetation (see Figure 15, Proposed Park Plan). The open space area, enhanced by trees and the stream corridor will minimize the visual impact of the project. The single-family dwellings would not be a source of substantial light or glare which would advcrsely affect day or nighttime views in thc area becausc all project lighting would have to meet the requirements of thc Dublin zoning ordinance, which requircs illumination and lighting to be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LS/M. The Fallon Crossing project is protecting the ridge lines on the property through the clustering development on the lower portions of the site away from the steeper slopes that arc locatcd in the eastern portion of the site, consistent with Policy 6-29 of the Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan. The residences would not block views from Tassajara Road of the distant back-drop ridge1ine on the site pursuant to Policy 6-30. High quality dcsign and visual character consistent with Policy 6-31 is required to show that the residential homes would not block the ridgeline along the east portion of the site from Tassajara Road. The project would require grading of slopes to provide suitable building pads. As shown on the site plan, grading is proposed to the slopes in the northeast portion of the site and Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 43 '.:f:i)<,~, .~~ . w,' ':;& ",' -~. ,-, '~'.',-" ,'. ...~~....... :t,~:!J'~' ,;,'!-,'f;'f~ .~~_.. '\ ~'~..:t _._:/J;, 'N ,'.... . ~ ... ':" ....-...,.'... .. :'>' ~. ...~. --.~,.;. '~.t....f - ~ .- ". ,;;. ~i''' - .l~-": :."" . ,;:~~;!::~ ~ \,;......1"... ..:!;~ ~- !~~.. ,....-..:..,., Existing view from Tassajara Road looking south .... Visual simulation of proposed project Source: Environmental Vision, December 2005 Figure 12 Visual Simulation j, ~. ..c'" ,.J -J.~~" ~ ,,~'''- - .'-- 0 --'~.....,... . ~-r'."" -;T;~ ...... ~." ...,...- ~,7' ..... '.....-..~ t _ ;11"'''' ;. ,.... r-!',~ ~ -- ~ .'----_......... Existing view from new Fallon Road looking north ~..- .' ,... ,:!;-.;. J'~~ ,. I --- '-'."'.-' ,- ','~Io- ." "fJ._. . ;<;: .!it~.~,.;(' ...,_. Visual simulation of proposed project Source: Environmental Vision, December 2005 Figure 13 Visual Simulation , \ \'( ( - . \ ~~~~" C , ~"'~~,,~~~~' \ \ \~" ~ ~,,~~ '''~'' r "\ \ \ \, ,,-"""<,' '", ,,~ " /' _ #.J10.. ~~'" "',,,,,,,,::~~ ~ ~ (,..)/ .~, ::-... ""' ~ ~,~ " '" ~ ~ -- . <~.,' .''. ~ '~- ~ -" " ," \ .' VI'" ' " ".. ..... . ,.,."...." "~~ I ., ~~. ~ r''''' ,J;:." ~ "'~ - ) ,; ,/Y.\"< ~J;;";"Tc> ~..', '" ... . 'lJ~::,,!'f;~If/1 ", ","-{,_-J./""';J:::'0i;...... '~~......, , (""',.;' "'" .~ '- 11j"."/~' ' ...... ,/ ., . <../. ; , _~ l(,'.!-" , '.~ / ,;)~--';;'I',I LX; 17 I . '>. :-,;,z~~j/('.'~3> ~ "-..... ; . ., / ) ..,.., 1;'_." /_ '" ./' ; .n" ~ ~ ; ",.,' ,,-, ',,~ ,--,' ~,' ~I 01' 0G~"/I(r:. ,,:z,/ l-;;;::."i~..~.>.-.-c'--J!.c-,~I,,~~.- . , , ~ '3J '/ f~ 'I' /!fSJ.':."j';' ,<"; '-= I f"~" ' ' / .." , "" '- !1 I . ,S I' /1-'''; r ;;"', I"";""'"" '" '", '" .. . ~. ~' f:~0 II /'~I.,;;'rd' /' /, r(f-o:.'!!)<t1,,~:~-{r"~ .~(~'A~.;;01'>0'" "::7'" /' ~ , . " " L ;;(,"",/.",., '~ '-- ;//,. ... I" ," ' " ,'V ' 'i' /, i 'I" -" ,"'" "d'"'; I : . ~(f~'i 11/ //~ I:' I~ ~'~/;h{/~~~~;;~~~~/ , /" IF,,!'" ,_ ,_r,cdl''' ,'" ",,,' y'c i ,h;/A.://i/'//! / L)y'l'/'/t~-~;:~.--<"vi.;~:l, '.1.1':,:') ,//' t' , !.'r '.f," ' " c, nO" ,.e,"O; ,'", " 2. .' I }lf~>~'/I i / II,! 'J~ ~ d <",in' ,it.. - ,~. .,,'i!:/'j'.."'\ , if: /(,( :,,~,. '/ / I' ;,1/~~' ,'I" / ~::t",J' I ", ~;;:~ (" ." yy:'; , 1 .' _ ,_, 1/ r ., . .., ' ,~. " . ' ,,' .; , ,,"" I //"-"','1 /4."' "'Vi . ~ I' r(' , ' '''' ' " "'"' " "",d - 1/,' '''' '" -" 'bfJ1 'I~~~~I/ //1 1/4:7//' k~,,;J./~""'i~ /frffjll~'..J jl' // '. !r~~--;'j'1 / I' (/!"mtf'I'i",J ~! NY ;I A-'%. I- V 1'\ l" , I ('. 11 / I (II elf h'l iii./' liede,II / ~J' . .. ,,~,I" ,"'r" ,,,,,,.. i, ,,,, t ./'K ' II' \-kr;-~'rl'I'.' I~~II (' / VI ,;.'i}".~!II,?,"--']jr1:l ,1J':...::.~j.,),':.'7;',,~'"-J;;ry) ,/ '/; , \~'" I MJ" .' ",,_"" I J r'''' ' " ,f ,H'" , / I \ \ \ _~I! ~ 11 I /,. ~".)!lI. p<- 7} i:::,?~ ';j/ "I(fi>...~ I / !:~\' ~\ \~c}J ( J/AiJ Y /If lli!"~~;);:< .,i!--l~/'I/..-j;,~}-"';" J' !f i (, \ \~ '\ ,~~\ !({"f,JJ/~. /"0~1 / 'j~'t' !I Q\i~'/ t. } / ' ' . \ \h~~:J~'\~ 1).l)~).'.J, \ ~~'I'//(;II'~/: ~,' I/'~,) ;;>~.j,~./ -~:/ / / / c \ I. ~. ',,",' \\~(~\:, \ ,; ,.,' ( "".;,''''. ; / p""" ,- I;" I -; I," ~~-..;. \ ~ ," ~'\ 'I,' l f,~' -. /1 ',,>,, </ // / ' , . \. \ . #.",' , , -,<< , " ," \ \, . \. . _ :-----~' .II /" .'~ v l/I . /. v/ /. / I ~ \11 \\ ,,:~1 '1':';\>-1/11" (/(1' / .,,'" ~ > 9f;j')-' ~0' 4 -//- /. ~ \ \V"'<" "Cl'"-~,.?, " ( ~'".~ Ji,~;', / . ___. \\ ~}:i1 \' _~~Y'. ! / ( <' ,,":1-;/; /' -[.' , ',-. c,)- ,. I) , I I I "," "~~%.. ;,:,-' l \ d ," I I I r~~ -. / ":/" ' ,"'_ ";,, ~< ~" ' . "I' I, ..10'/' J" ," ' , /')~'> ~ -\f:;,/:::J;.2~-'- ;" 'j, "j,-II iA \1 + L~ ' ,( ~~:;'I :' <- , \\\,)~7./ 1/ " ,,_-----. I! ' '. ' \~ . ' , " ' ",' /" v ' " ' : \.. 11 \ /At-? " /'1['/-' /' J,') ~./<-. /...' ,,_t ',' '..' . ,~,' /' " ," ' " " " " . ' {;" / ' ,'.- ' ~ \ ' ' . _~ < I I /' /,' ,',',' -.------ ,,' (' ' , 'I ,',' ' -,' / . / /,' '. ' ,. \ ' , / // --", '- / ~(. ; V <.-"; ; ; / ; ( ; / ; ; ; / ; , ; / ; ; ; I I , .- ';y ./ ~/I 0 cn"~rll:(; ~t,\:r: , ..__w",/ .0'] '1' ,,,., "-2 Simulation V' . lewpolnl Source: En ' vlrOnmental V' . ISlon D , ecember 2005 Simulation Vie . Figure 14 wpOtnt Locat' Ions .. ,~.......('- . , ",.' , . " 'I .-" .. .. '" , ..... - '0"".. ~'''O__ '1"'" ;; ,,;,; ...... ';,;;., ....... .. .. - ". - '-" -' . F~._ . . .'''--- . - .-., "-.... -.. . ....,;;, -- ..~ J'l~1 t..J-!~#it~~~l~<>Jlfrt,,lc~-/,,-..i~. I <~J~"'__.~:_" I , , ..,.. ; ; , '.' ,1- < , ; , " " .,.. ;'f .. h, II .{. . : . \ '\ ' .j. I'. I I ;, I I, I 1'1 · ;', ... fI'll <., I, II -" ""w....". \..---, , '.. 'I -.J' l' --~ '--- I.; .1." S TI//G ' - \ '. I '-., "~ '-__"'~ , --.". ._ ;;."'......_ '~:.\::_.:.'~----,~.~ ,.:=~~u -~--...-,~;-.- ::-:--~._--------------"'------ ,",W""''''''__-'-~'N '., , ..J_ p~" ~~ =T.';;' ~ .. - - ,,0<, ~"".., :,." J'o ;.;'~:,rt~::~.~_. ;='.~: ~ --. .. ~~~ :~:;,';;' .~. '.A~""-'-'1 i.:.o;".:t:~ -- ::~;.;~:,_.- '5",,- ", ~ ,;...,.~.;;,;:;,. ~, ~.';~,", ....-';;:0..:.-. ,.... . , , - - :~i;~;::;...; ~',~:f:~r. :';a~~",". ~i~Jl.~~~~~~::~.~~':;,~:~~': l.. .' ....... I~~!::':~~".~." .. ..".C.....Io~...~.J.l....I:;~~.... .. .~=~~~~.~..~!!_.~ ~ ;:;~:~:~~..."J(''"II. -4~..' '~~~ ~ 2'~:~: ;",::, \ ..". ,-. :![~~~~~~;~~;.?s~f;'i:::': : :~:.:: '::~~L'::::~~:::=':.' ..~.~ oG"" -__~. ."... =-:....~. . " .......,..:1. ~ . I ~;--::-::.:<: :~,'_:. .:: !;:." I.....~ .- ,.,..........;. ... ~. -~ te.. .~. :- :- ....;'.r :,.....-...~ '1u' .~~::: ~ ..::~:.~,:~~. J .: ". ;;-' --- . - :------./ , !!"~r.r P~~_. :t C' i",=._, i ...,., ~ - -: ... 1__ ,\..."Jf- _ ~-~- - ~---~.. " I--'~ ._ .'_ .... .',. . ~ - ."., '. - I' ... -.' ... (' ,. -",,*. . - < - -"I", ,.., -. 'It.~ --: ~--~ ~ ." :.-;-,::;:-,;~;;.. ..',---~-::--- .' I'. ,- - ~~::;:;~: -:J.. \ .. ~ :--~~-:~~::= (~~ :=~~:::,~ ~f~::-" ~.:..~.,........ ~;~..~"... ~~':~~.~.. -~'"'lI"'."'" ~~-I_ :...:v....s..:. ',.,..;~ lW..r ~"'c.~: ~"_P.A< !~~~% ~:~~~~~~.=::.~ j..<:H t"''''''''I'''"~..l ..,.:."......:~ ~I: ~~i~:,. ...~......C'..".. ...~~..s...~ ~~~~. :.oe.....'Cfl ""~-t..,=" '.\00 llFJ"lL"'" <:oo~ ;~,;.:;~.. :':;,11 .:ca.z \ ... - -\ pc~k~l p.ark i. 2 ).'0<::0'" ,. ."0"/,- ........ & associates . alexander Source: ralph J. I\,/II'Lll~ :::..1::0 ; 11 :::: ::'11"1 :: III' .ll ....llllanUt:..&'o"t :.+~Ilr~ct:on '..1 i.J: I : ^,.I~ ...1 IPAIGATiONi'lOT:~ "-J"~~ . "..-,.:::'... ~~;~~~~~~~~~-~~~~,:~~"~-'- .' , ~~~:'~7d~~:~~~;:~;:'~~~..::: :-_:- ':: ,', . ..."-.......,-,.,,..,....:...:::r ... ....~ ....~.. .. . .........,........I:.:.~..~:.~I...:..~.. . ~~~:.~;:~" '-'..- .. .,-~.- ~ ~,~.; ';;:?~~..( I. ..'-_ :E:::;:~:~ ::'.:::." .,-.'. . 6. , . , . .... 'lI . ~i~~i-:':OiS'" ;;;~,". :;::" '. . ,. . ~.- .jd~l! jl; ',J .~.. .j.;' , ~~ '/:1- . ~:~: .~:::~~..,,: '~:~'Z. ~;,~,1. '4h~i ~;~~ 1 '-. I':~,:'~~!!t..", ~'_J. -., ..._...... ~'J GROlJ~t1(.~'I;:~:':'t. . ~'2:~~;-~.:~~;::,,- . ~~::~:?~~~:.~., " :;t~: . .,.~' f ..'lo; ',.;.:"':; ~ ,::r-' . gL'!l<fft;;::F.r.'~'~lr '.ij',3.'lI:!'/~~~~,- :~;:: :::~ 'e""'''' IGb.4 'C"~J:. ooe~, ':N), .~, -i~~ ~ ~'~" ~Jo"" ~~;~~ ~: . :E~ bench _ : 3 ; i:-:'in~.ce a.""a\o." 1:"1': ., -" ~. '. ... ,,.... - '.'- "~~:"o!o.I9':"~:'."'" --;~~f~:.;~:~~..~~,_:.: '... ......;, . ... ~. ...... . - - ..- -. "', "" - -- I ~t~L-j ~'-t'"i "r'~\2 ~,,:-;.) ~'S~. ~~~~('-"<C~':" .mrr, itrii:~ Ir-- , --"'T7 F~ - .@ .fi"J~~~~ :,:\.-._~~ - -::~;.... . -''': -......;. I_~.r:..l ~1:' ...."!. ~ i Figure 15 d Park Plan Propose along the east project boundary. Some off-site remcdia1 grading is proposed on the Silvera property south of the site as part of the Fallon Crossing project. The proposed grading of the project meets the intent of Policies 6-32 through 6-38 by contour grading to match existing natural topographic contours as much as possible, eliminate extensive flat areas in hillside arcas, and minimize grades for cut and fill slopes to 3:1 or less. As shown prcviously in the visual simulations, thc ridgelines in the eastern portion of the site remain visible across thc site and between the residences from Tassajara Road. While the project would intermpt the current unobstructed view of the ridgelines for the length of the site along Tassajara Road, the project would retain and continue to allow some vicws of the ridgelines. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment EIR addrcsses the potential aesthetic impacts associated with development of the specific plan area, including the proposed site. Thc proposed Fallon Crossing project will protect the visual resources of the site, including retention of the prcdominant natural features on the sitc such as the ridgelines, creek, and open space without having any new or greater aesthetic impacts that are identified in thc Eastcrn Dublin SP/GPA EIR. The incorporation of Mitigation Measures 3.8/2.0, 3.8/4.0, 3.8/4.1, 3.8/4.2, 3.8/4.3, 3.8/4.4, 3.8/4.5, 3.8/5.0, 3.8/5.1, 3.8/5.2, 3.8/7.0, 3.8/7.1 and 3.8/8.1 from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR are listed below and shall be included in the design of the final project (Stage 2 Development Plan) to reducc potcntial scenic impacts to less-than- significant. Mitigation Measurc 1. Thc City shall ensure implemcntation of the Specific Plan/General Plan land use plan, which was developcd to retain prcdominant natural features and a sense of openness. (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0) Mitigation Measure 2. The project shall reduce the visual impact of extensive grading through sensitivc cnginccring design that uses gradual transitions from graded areas to natural slopes and revegctation. (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.0) Mitigation Measure 3. The final grading plan shall minimize alterations to existing natural contours. (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.1) The final grading plan shall avoid extensivc arcas development. (Eastcrn Dublin General Amendment/Spccific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.2) Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Mitigation Measure 4. of flat Plan 48 Mitigation Measure 5. The design of the residential units shall conform to natural landfonns as much as possible. (Eastern Dublin GcneraI Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.3) Mitigation Measure 6. All graded slopes shall be recontoured to resemble existing Iandfonns in the immediate area. (Eastern Dublin Gcncral Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.4) Mitigation Measure 7. The height of cut and fill slopes shall be minimized as much as possible. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.5) Mitigation Measure 8. Development on the main lidgeline shall be prohibited to minimize visual impacts and ensure that development on foreground hills meet certain standards. (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.0) Mitigation Measure 9. Structures shall be located so they do not obstruct scenic views or appear to extend above an identi fied scenic backdrop when viewed from a designatcd scenic route. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.2) Mitigation Measure 10. Residential units on the hillsides that appear to project above major ridgelines shall be prohibited. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/5.2) Mitigation Measure 11. View of designated opcn spacc shall be preserved. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.817.0) Mitigation Measure 12. A visual survey shall be prepared of thc project area to identify and map view sheds of sccnic vistas. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.817.1) Mitigation Measure 13. A detailed visual analysis shall be submitted with development project applications. (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.8/8.1) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? LS. Neither Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Almexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 49 Tassajara Road nor Fallon Road is a state scenic highway. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? LS. The project would change the Fallon Crossing site from vacant agricultural open space to residential use. The project proposes to develop 19.5 areas of thc site that comprise mostly the lowcr level arcas. The ridgelines in the middle and east portions of the site will not be developed. The projcct also retains the tributary stream along the north project boundary that will not be deve10pcd. The project proposes to retain approximately 48.3 acrcs of the site in open space. The incorporation of Mitigation Measures 1-13 abovc from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR would reducc visual impacts lcss-than-significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Nt. The projcct would generate ncw sources of light and glare on the site. The light and glare generated by thc project will not be any different or greater in intensity than similar residential devclopment in the specific plan area. There are no City designated views in the area that would be adversely affectcd during the day or nighttime by the project. The light and glare gcnerated by the project would have no impact to day or nighttime vicws. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Environmental Setting Agricultural resourccs were analyzed in Chapter 3.1, Land Use, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. In 2000, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Governmcnt Reorganization Act (AB 2838) cxtcnsively modified the state's annexation law. Among thc modifications was a new definition of "prime" agricultural lands. The Fallon Crossing site is classified as "Grazing Land" by the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation. This information is shown on a map titled "Alameda County Important Farmland 1992" prcpared by the California Resources Agency. The Grazing Land category identified land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. More recently, the site is still designated grazing land7 There are no prime agricultural lands on the site. A large portion of the project site is identified as "Lands of Locally Important Falmlands" by the Eastern Dublin General Plan EIR'. Land of local importance is defined as those that contribute to local production of food, feed, fiher, forage and oilseed crops. The local importance of the 7 California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Important Farmland in California, 2002. R Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, August 28,1992, Figure 3.1-B. Dublin Community Development Depaliment 50 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationlPrezoning PA04-16 Fallon Crossing site is for cattle grazing. The remaining area is designated "Other", which is defined by the Soil Conservation Service as those areas where the soil does not support fannland due to the presencc of steep slope, landslides, or other factors.' Proiect Impacts Neithcr the Mission Peak nor the Fredrich site is elassifjed as Prime Farmland, Unique Farnlland, or Farmland of Statewide Imp0l1ancc. However, the Mission Peak propel1y is considered locally imp011ant fannland by the Eastern Dublin General Plan, as noted above, and is used for cattle grazing. Neither the Fredrich nor thc Fallon Crossing properties are in a Williamson Act contract. There is no important farmland on thc site that would be convcl1ed to non-agricultural use with development ofthe 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? NI. The Fallon Crossing site is classified as "Grazing land" and used for cattle grazing. Thcrefore no Prime Fannland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be convcrtcd to urban usc by the project. The project will have no impact to Prime Farnlland, Unique Farmland, or Fannland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI. Neither property is in a Williamson Act contract as stated above. The project will have no impact to any land in a Williamson Act contract. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Nl. The Fallon Crossing site is dcsignated for residential development per the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project is consistent with the land use and density proposcd for the sitc by the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. The Fallon Crossing project would not involve other changcs that duc to its location would convert farmland to non-agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY Environmental Selling The project site is located within the Livermore-Amador Yallcy, which fomls a small sub regional air basin distinct from the largcr San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore- Amador Valley air basin is sUlTounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills sunounding the air basin are Niles Canyon, and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. 9 Eastcm Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, August 28,1992, Page 3.1-2. Dublin Conmmnity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationlPrczoning PA 04-16 51 The OCCUlTence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions occur during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, cspecially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but also can be the receptor of ozone and ozone prccursors from upwind portions of the i,'Tcater Bay Area. During thc winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location result in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions, pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulatc matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural buming can become concentrated. Local wind data show thc frequent occun-ence of low wind speed and calm conditions. These local limitations on the capacity for horizontal dispersion of air pollutants combined with the regional characteristic of restricted vertical dispersion give the area a high potential for rcgional air quality problems. Sensitive Receptors The Bay Area Air Quality Management District defines sensitivity receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor !,'TOUPS (children, the eldcrly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uscs inelude residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. One such scnsitive receptor in the project vicinity is the QualTY Lane School, which is approximately onc-quarter mile south of the site. Other sensitive land uses inelude the residential subdivisions bcing constmcted or proposed in the area (i.e. Dublin Ranch West, Silvera Ranch, etc.). Project Impacts a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? NI. The Fallon Crossing projcct would generate additional vehicular traffic to and in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. The project vehicle trips would generate carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxidc, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PMlO). The project is consistent with the land use and density allowed by the Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan, which is low density rcsidential within a development potential range of 36 to 172 residential units. The units proposed for the Fallon Crossing project total 103 residential units, which is near the mid-point oflhe range of units all ow cd on the site. Thcreforc, the project confornls to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Clcan Air Plan and would not conJ1ict with or obstruct implementation of the District's Clean Air Plan. No objectionable odors would be created by the proposed residential uses for the site. The air quality impacts associated with development of the site with residential use wcre Dublin ConmlUllity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 52 adequately addrcsscd in the Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Gencral Plan Amendmcnt and Specific Plan. The project would have no impact on implementation of the BAAQMD air quality plan. No furthcr analysis or mitigation is required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? LS/M. Thc air emissions generatcd by the project can be divided into short-tenn constmction related impacts and long-term opcrational impacts. In tenns of short-tern1 construction-related air quality impacts, the project would generate tcmporary dust and particulate matter during grading acti vities to providc building pads, internal streets, neighborhood park and detention basin. The movement of construction vehicles along unpavcd surfaces would generate dust as would wind blowing over exposed dirt surfaccs. Generalized estimatcs of shorHern1 particulatc air emissions during project grading and construction ineludc approximately 1.2 tons of dust per acre per month. About 45 percent of construction-related dust is composed of large particles that settle rapidly on nearby surfaccs and are easily filtcrcd by human breathing patterns. The rcmainder of dust consists of small particles (also known as PM,o). Sincc preparation of thc Eastern Dublin EIR thcre have been sevcral regulatory changes, methods for air quality analysis as well as changes to applicable thresholds of environmental significancc. Changes to the Regulatory Setting Ambient Air Quality Standards. The federal and California ambient air quality standards are summarizcd in Table 1 below for important pollutants. The federal and state ambient standards were dcveloped indepcndcntly with differing purposes and mcthods, although both fedcral and state standards are intended to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the fedcral and state standards diffcr in some cases. In general, the Califomia state standards are more stringent. This is particularly truc for ozone and PMIO. Table 1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards - Pollutant A veraging Time Federal Primary State Standard Standard Ozone I-Hour 0.12ppm 0.09 ppm 8-Hour 0.08 ppm -- Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm I-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 Dom Nitrogen Dioxide Alillual 0.05 ppm -- I-Hour m 0.25 ppm Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm -- 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-11our m 0.25 nnm Dublin Conummity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Propeliics Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 53 PMlO Alimal 50 ug/m3 20 ug/m3 24-Hour 150 uel m3 50 ug/m] PM1.S Annual IS ug/m3 12 ug/m3 24-Hour 65 ug/m] -- Lead 30-Day A vg. -- 1.5 ug/m3 3-Month Avu. 1.5 ug/m3 -- ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: Donald I3aIlanti The U.S. Enviroruncntal Protection Agency established new national air quality standards for ground-level ozone and for fine particulate matter in 1997. Thc existing I-hour ozone standard of o. I 2 ppm is to be phased out and replaced by an 8-hour standard of -.08 ppm. Implementation of the 8-hour standard was delayed by litigation, but was determincd to be valid and enforceable by the U.S. Supremc Court in a decision issued in Fcbruary of 2001. However, this new federal ozone standard is not yet in effect pcnding final resolution of this litigation and adoption of implementing regulations. In 1997 new national standards for finc Particulate Matter (diameter 2.5 microns or less) were adopted for 24-hour and annual averaging periods. The CUlTent PMlO standards were to be retained, but the mcthod and form for determining compliance with the standards werc to be revised. Implementation of this standard was delayed by litigation and will not occur until the U.S. Envirorunental Protection Agency has issued court- approvcd guidance. Thc State of Califomia regularly reviews scientific literature rcgarding the hcalth effects and exposure of PM and other pollutants. On May 3, 2002, thc California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff recommended lowcring the level of the annual standard for PM 1 0 and establishing a new annual standard for PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller). The new standards became effective on July 5, 2003. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (T ACs) are anothcr group of pollutants of concem. TACs arc injmious in small quantitics and are regulated despite the absence of criteria documents. The identification, regulation and monitoring ofTACs is relativcly recent compared to that for critcria pollutants.10 Current Air Quality. The project is within the nine-county Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) operates a network of air quality monitoring sites in the rcgion. The closest to the site is located in central Livennore on Old First Street. Table 2 shows a summary of air quality data for this monitoring site for the period 2000-2002. Data are shown for ozone, carbon monoxide, PM 10. PM25, and nitrogen dioxide. The numbcr of days exceeding each standard is shown for each year. 10 Dublin Rancb West Draft Supplemental EIR, page 39-40, November 2004. Dublin Conmmnity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AmlcxatiDnlPrezoning PA 04-16 54 Table 2 shows that concentrations of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide at the LivernlOre monitoring sitc meet state/federal standards. Ozone concentrations exceed both the state and federal standards, and exhibit wide variations from year-to-year related to metcorological conditions. Years where the summer months tend to be warmer than average tend to have highcr average ozonc concentrations while years with cooler than average temperatures tcnd to have lower avcrage ozone concentrations. Table 2 Air Quality at Livermore Monitoring Site, 2000-2002 Pollutant Standard Davs Standard Exceeded DurinQ: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Ozone Federall- I 0 2 I 0 Hour Ozone Stale I-Hour 7 9 10 10 5 Ozone Federal 8- 2 2 6 3 0 Hour PMIO Federal 24- 0 0 0 0 0 Hour PMIO State 24-Hour 2 3 2 0 0 PM2.5 Federal 24- 0 I 0 0 0 Hour Carbon Statc/Federat 0 0 0 0 0 Monoxide 8-Hour Nitrogen State I-Hour 0 0 0 0 0 Dioxide Source: CARE, 2003 Levels of PM,o at Livermore meet the federal ambient standards, but exceed the more stringent state standards, except for the past two years. PM2.5 emissions at the Livermore station cxcceded state standards one day in 200 I. Attainment Status. The federal Clean Air Act and thc California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the California Air Resources Board (CARB), bascd on air quality monitoring data, designate air basins within the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attairul1ent areas". Because ofthc differences between the federal and state standards, the designation of non-attainment areas is different under the federal and statc legislation. In 1995, after several years of minimal violations of the federal onc-hour ozone standard, thc U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) reviscd the designation of the Bay Area Air Basin from "non-attainment" to "attainmcnt" for this standard. Howevcr, with less favorable meteorology in subsequent years, violations of the one-hour ozonc standard again were observed in the basin, pm1icularly at thc Livcrn10rc monitoring station. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnncxationlPrezoning PA 04-16 55 Effective August 1998, the EP A downgraded the Bay Area's elassification for this standard from a "maintenance" area to an "unclassified non-attainment" area. Also in 1998, after many years without violations of any carbon monoxide (CO) standards, the attainn1ent status for CO was upgraded to "attainn{ent." The California Air Resources Board and U. S. Enviromnental Protection Agency have both proposed that the San Francisco Bay Area be classified as a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour standard. The California Air Resources Board and U. S. Enviromnental Protection Agency have both proposcd that the San Francisco Bay Area be considered unclassifiable with respect to the fedcral PM2.5 standards. Unelassifiable means that an area calmot be classificd on the basis of available inforn1ation as mecting or not meeting the national primary or sccondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant. U.S. EP A plans to finalize PM2.5 designations by December 15,2004. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently non-attaimncnt for ozone (state and federal standards) and PM,o (state ambient standard). However, in April 2004, the U.S. EP A madc a final finding that the Bay arca has attained the national one-hour standard. The finding of attainment does not mean the Bay area has been reclassified as an attainment area for thc I-hour standard. The region must submit a rcdesignation request to thc EP A in ordcr to be reclassified as an attaimnent area. Whilc air quality plans exist for ozone, none exists (or is cUlTently required) for PM,o. The Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the I-Hour National Ozone Standard (BAAQMD, 2001) is the ClllTent ozone air quality plan required under the federal Clean Air Act. The state-mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2000). These plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures to be implemented in thc region to attain the state and fcderal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The documcnt BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines was published subsequent to the pllblication of the East Dublin EIR. These Guidelines provide recommended mitigation practices during construction based on the size of the project and expanded rccommcndcd mitigations for opcrational impacts of commercial projects. Significancc criteria. The BAAQMD has revised recommended thresholds of significance since publication of the East Dublin E1R (BAAQMD, ] 999). The document BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establishes the following impact criteria: . A significant impact on local air quality is defined as an incrcase in carbon monoxide. concentrations that causes a violation of the most stringent ambient air quality standard for carbon monoxidc (20 ppm for the one-hour avcraging pCliod, 9.0 ppm for the eight-hour averaging period). Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AIlncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 56 . A significant impact on rcgional air quality is defined as an incrcasc in emissions of an ozone precursor or PM,o exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The ClllTent significance thresholds are 80 pounds per day (or 15 tons/year) for ozone precursors or PM,o. . Any proposed project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also be considered to have a significant cumulativc air quality impact. . Any projcct with the potential to frequcntly expose members of thc public to objectionable odors would be dcemed to have a significant impact. Despite the establishment of both federal and statc standards for PM2.5 (particulate matter, 2.5 microns), the BAAQMD has not developed a threshold of significancc for this pollutant. For this analysis, PM2.5 impacts would be considcred significant if project emissions ofPM1o exceed 80 pounds per day. The ClllTent BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. The BAAQMD guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emission of PM10. Construction activities, including grading, would have the potential to cause nuisance related to dust and PM10. The CUlTent BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriatencss of construction dust controls. If the appropriatc construction controls are implementcd, then air pollutant emissions for constmction activities would be considcred less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 in thc East Dublin EIR implements most, but not all, of the cUlTcntly recommended measurcs. In addition to measures identified in Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 of the East Dublin EJR that will be incorporated into the project to reduce dust emissions, the following added measurcs shall be implemented at the Stage 2 Development Plan phase of thc project to reduce these potential impacts: Mitigation Measure 14 Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. Mitigation Measure 15 Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas, and staging arcas at construction sites. Mitigation Measure 16 Requirc construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Dublin Community Development Departn1cnt 57 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 According the current BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, implementation of these mitigation measurcs would reduce construction period air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project would result in a regional emission increase. Vehiclc hips gencrated by the project would result in air pollutant emissions affecting the entire San Francisco Bay Air Basin. The incrcmental daily emISSIOn increase associated with project operational trip generation would be Icss than identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR because thc project proposes 69 fewer units than the maximum number of units allowed. The City requires the implemcntation of a Construction Impact Rcduction Plan as a standard condition of approval, which incorporates all air quality mitigation strategics to reduce air emissions. With incorporation of all applicable City required mcasures to reduce air emissions during project grading and construction, air quality emission impacts are less-than-significant. The project is estimatcd to generatc 756 vehicle trips per day to the local roadway system. Thc vehiclc trips would generatc daily air emissions ineluding carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and par1iculate matter (PM 10). The daily air emissions generated by the project arc estimated to be approximately 2.18 pounds per day of reactive organic gases, 4.7 pounds of nitrous oxide, and 4.42 pounds of PMIO, which would be less than the 80 pounds per day threshold for each pollutant adopted by the BAAQMD. The air quality impact of the operational air emissions generated on a daily basis by the project would be less-than-significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? LS. The project is estimated to gcnerate 756 trips per day. As noted above, thc project proposes fewer residential units than the maximum numbcr allowed by the Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan and the number of units proposed are at the mid-point of the General Plan density range. The ozone contributcd per day by the project would be less than allowcd by the Specific Plan and addressed in thc Program EIR for the Eastem Dublin Gcneral Plan Amcndment and Specific Plan. Thercfore, there would be a cumulative net dccrease of criteria pollutants by the project and no furthcr analysis is required. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? NI. Thc project would exposc residents and sensitive reccptors to air emissions from mobile sources, ineluding rcactive organic gases, nitrogcn oxides, and particulates. Howevcr, the project proposes 103 residential units, which are 69 fewcr units than thc maximum number of Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Almexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 58 units allowcd by the Specific Plan. As stated above, the daily air emissions generated by the project are estimated to be approximately 2.18 pounds pcr day of reactive organic gases, 4.7 pounds of nitrous oxide, and 4.42 pounds of PMJO. Thesc cmissions are less than the 80 pounds per day threshold for each pollutant adopted by the BAAQMD. Thus, the project would not expose project residents and sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants. The projcct would have no impact to the cxposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number afpeaple? Nl. The residential use proposed for the site would not create objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people, including project residents, guests, or sUlTounding uses. The project would have no impact to objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting Olberding Environmcntal, Inc. prepared a biological resource analysis]] of the site, including surveys for the California rcd-leggecl frog and California tiger salamander]2 The surveys are included as Appendix A. Thc biological analysis includcs a review of previously prepared biological rcports/information, pertinent literature on habitat characteristics of the site, and a review of infornlation related to species of plants and animals that could potentially utilize the described habitats. Thc biological resourccs analysis includes a review of relevant background infOlmation, including tbc California Natural Divcrsity Date Base (CNNDB) and the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) lnventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Pants of California, as well as field investigations conducted in January 2003 and April 2004. The property consists of undevelopcd grazing lands that have steep to moderately steep topography ranging in elevation from approximately 705 feet at the northeast corner of the site to 470 feet along Tassajara Road. The hillsides on the site support non-native annual grassland tlu.oughout the site and smaller patches of native percnnial grassland habitat arc found on the north facing slopes. The wcstern edge of the property, adjacent to Tassajara Road is relativcly flat with a slight slope from east to west. A series of hillsides are found on thc majority of the property extending to the eastern boundary from the flat areas along Tassajara Road. The land is used for cattle grazing which leaves little or no vegetation in some areas where high traffic occurs. An eastern fork of Tassajara Creek, which is mmamed, flows in a northeast to southwest direction on-site along the n0l1hem project boundary. This area supports sparse riparian vegetation, which has bcen impactcd by grazing cattle resulting in a lack of under story 11 Biological Resources Analysis for the Mission Peak Property, Olberding Environmental Inc., July 2004. 12 Mission Peak Development Project Biological Assessment for Califomia Red-Legged frog & California Tiger Salamander, Olberding Environmental, Inc., July 2004. Dublin Conmmnity Development Department 59 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationIPrezoning PA 04-16 vegetation. An unpaved gravel access road parallels the east fork of Tassajara Creek onto the site from Tassajara Road and terminates approximately 600 feet onto the site. Thcre are two constructed ponds on the site. One pond has been constructed as part of a recent mitigation measure for the Dublin Ranch developmcnt. The pond is located at the bottom of an intern1ittent drainage originating from two hillside seeps. This pond consists of a constmcted berm and spillway placed across the drainage. The second constructed pond is located to the east of the east fork creek channel. This pond has bcen fenced to prevent cattle grazing and is surrounded by thick emergent wctland vegetation. The pond was rccreated in the spring of 200land planted with freshwater marsh and riparian species such as cattails, three square, arroyo willow, western sycamore, and cottonwood and serves as a breeding pond for the California red- legged frog. Both ponds are located in proposed open spacc areas; no development activity will occur in or near either pond. The elosest grading or construction activity to either pond will be a minimum of200 feet. The objectives of the surveys were to detern1inc the presence or absence of spccial-status species habitat listed in the CNDDB database and to document the potential for special-status species to occur on site. In addition, Olbcrding Environmental looked for other potential sensitive specics or habitats which may not have been obvious from background data basc reports or research. Surveys conducted after the growing season or conducted outside ofthc specific flowering period for a special-status plant cannot conelusively detennine the presencc or absence of such plant species; thcrefore, site conditions and habitat typc were used to determine potential for occurrence. When suitable habitat was observed to support a special-status plant or animal species it is notccl. However, the observation or such plants and animals on site is not necessary to make the detennination tbat suitable habitat is present. A summary ofthc biological survey is presented below. Wetlands Bascd on the results of the ficld survey conducted by Olberding Environmental on January 23 and 24, 2003, several Corps regulated features were identified within the boundaries of the site. These features ineluded an intennittcnt drainage channel, onc perennial creek channel, two stock ponds, and two sccp features. Areas identified as potential wetlands werc dominated by vegetation commonly associated with wetland plant communities and contained soils associated with saturated or hydric conditions. In addition to wetland vegetation and soils indicators, hydrological indicators were rcadily visible in the form of flowing water, ponded water, and saturation. Identification of potential waters ineludcs the presence of a defined bed and bank and the absence of wetland vegctation. Areas qualifying as potential jurisdictional waters occurred within the intern1ittent drainage channel and in the east fork ofTassajara Creek. Dublin Community Development Deparhnent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 60 Special-Status Plauts Non-nativc annual grassland habitat dominates the site. The existing habitat conditions could support the OCCUlTence of five special-status plant spccies within the survey areas. The plant species that have a potential to occur on the site inelude big tar plant, large-flower fiddleneck, diamond pctalcd Califomia poppy, Condgons's tar plant and round-leaved filaree. Thc area in which these plants could potentially exist consists of annual grassland on a vmicty of soils. Based on the presence of the required habitat type that is known to support these spccial-status plants, additional surveys will be necessary during the growing scason to determinc if these plants occur on site. No special-status plant species were recorded during site reconnaissance surveys conducted in January 2003. Special-Status Wildlife Special-Status Mammals - The site is located within the northwest range for the San Joaquin kit fox. The habitat on the site consists of grasslands, a habitat type uscd by the San Joaquin kit fox, but docs not rcpresent the most prcfcrred habitat availablc. No sign of the San Joaquin kit fox was detected during surveys conducted in January 2003 U The soils on the site are not sandy, friable types and consist of clay substrates in which a dcn site is gcnerally morc difficult to establish. There are no locations to the south of thc property that a San Joaquin kit fox would travel as thesc areas arc developed; and therefore, no north to south movement tlu.ough the property may bc anticipated. There is a very low potential that thc San Joaquin kit fox could pass in an east to wcst direction within thc property based on this analysis. The vast majority of potential habitat is east of the sitc. A number of surveys for kit fox have been conducted in thc Eastern Dublin arca (H.T. Harvey & Associatcs 1997a) and thc adjacent North Livennore Valley (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). None ofthesc surveys detected kit fox with the exception of a single kit fox detected on two separate nights while spotlighting approximately six miles east and five miles north of the Dublin Ranch West area in Contra Costa County on Morgan Tcrritory Road. Despite morc intense efforts to detect kit fox in the Eastcm Dublin and North Livermore Valley areas since 1997, none has been detected. Based on negative results within the Eastern Dublin area and the sUlTounding areas, kit fox appear to be absent from the Eastcrn Dublin area (see analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c).14 Special-Status Reptiles and Amphibians - The east fork of Tassajara Crcck is known to support the California red-legged frog and numerous sightings have been documented by the CNDDB. In addition, the western pond turtle is known to occur on the main branch of Tassajara Creek and it has been sighted on the projcct site. Recent surveys have also detelmincd the prcsence of breeding California tiger salamander in the manillade pond near the southern arca ofthe site half way up a hill at the base of an intermittent drainagc fed by seasonal secps on thc hillside. It can also be assumed that upland habitat slllTounding thc breeding pond is suitable for estivation habitat. 13 I3iological Resources Analysis for the Mission Peak Property, Olberding Environmental, Inc. July 2004, page 18. 14 Dublin Ranch West Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, November 2004, page 54. Dublin Community Development Department 61 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prczoning PA04-16 Ncsting Raptor Species - Habitat exists on the site to supp0l1 a wide variety of foraging raptor species such as the red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, bUlTowing owl, goldcn eagle, and northern halTier. Thc red-tail hawk, American kestrel and northern halTicr were observed to forage on the site during the reconnaissance survey. The blue gum eucalyptus trees on the western property boundary, on the cast sidc of the creek tributary to Tassajara Creek, were observed to support a nesting pair of red-tail hawks. If the grassland arcas become tall and can provide heavy cover, they would be suitable for the northern hanier to nest on the ground. Raptors are known to nest on the site based on the prescnce of suitable habitat, and other raptors could ncst on the site in addition to the red-tail hawk. Special-Status Passerines - The tricolored blackbird was observed to forage on the site in large flocks in excess of 300 birds. They are winter migrants that feed within the grassland areas but thc property does not support habitat that this species could nest. The California horned lark may also occur on the site as it contains highly suitable habitat for the bird's occurrence. The project includcs approximately 46.8 acres of open space. The open space allows a large amount of land to rcmain undcveloped and serve as a corridor connccting to the unnamed creek along the northern projcct boundary as well as open space on adjacent properties and contiguous with the park and open spacc between the homes and thc unnamed stream as shown previously in Figure 3. For instancc, with approval of thc Silvera Ranch development, approximately 57 acres of open space was preserved contiguous to the southeastcrly boundary of thc open spacc area shown on the Fallon Crossing development plan. Figure 16 shows the important environmental resourccs on the site as well as the general vicinity. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or Us. Fish alld Wildlife Service? LS/M. The project could impact fivc special status plant species that have thc potential to occur on thc site. The five plant species include big tar plant, large-flowcrcd fiddleneck, diamond petaled California poppy, Condgon's tar plant and round-Ieavcd filaree. Protocol surveys during blooming periods of the rcspective plants would have to be completcd to dcte1ll1ine whether or not any of the plants are prcsent on the site. The following measure shall be incorporated into the project to reduce the impact to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 17 Spring surveys shall be completed for big tar plant, large- flowered fiddJencck, diamond petaled California poppy, Condgon's tar plant and round- Icaved filarec prior to the start of grading or construction. The results of the surveys shall be Dublin Community Development Deparhl1ent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties ArulexationlPrczoning PA 04-16 62 \:c-"i. ,. .~__~--;:- '\ .,. -- / ' >> .,; (;,;,:h~r-:. /., ,_." " . . --' ' ,'- .,.'~~\";~' .;?-'.. -., '.--- "" -' , ,.,' .' ~ .....-, :~., ,-'''-. , .- .,' ".~ . .~"~~:!1~L:.\O~,OOO 00 ". ~~..~~r 1Ui7i.-;.~I':..J-..~;...,-\"~,:~~~~~I~~~~ . -----....000 ooooo~ I.. ,__,,,},,~-;,,,,\,~,,,.:..;~./';"-;~..:..0-"::::l,,,-,';~...f".! ....- 00 00 -".,f '1,,-I"~\r'l.:.;J"'''''- - \.."',--;>.:_;.r... ~... "000 0'0 0 0 0 0'" ,\ "':'" ~." '''"'-''-...-7;~,}'''\- <."f!.....' __':-J~/':,"r.."~ ...- ,... ..~ 0......-.:.. ..,...,'" _, r ".....,'\ _'\.' , ~ .. 1lO..Q. ,,*, 00 0 0 ..,' - t',. ,."'i--;:"'/--,f''/...'....- 1" ~.. 7':- <J- ...~... , ..- ' ~< 0]11I(, I) J. 0 ~-.; 1 .-:::..--, . ...-"....,:;.-.. ,;.... - ,_ ......J.{_.- iI'" .".;: .. ~~_ 000'....0. DC 0. 0.,.. '\ I'". :~.~~..~."'.."I..,';.!-,.7..-...,.... ..:::, "~!.j,:-...":!..; '_'-I -. ~... 0 0, ~:/... .. ,...~,-..~, -,"', J'~ ,_.. ,.....'\'l-...... ' ..~ J 0 Q 0* O. 0 0 ," - . J"_"'J ''':::''::f'''J'_-.......''~'~.:; :...,::r-;f:::~V<,'...;.!..:;;< ~ '\ 00" O;J.' .; '" 7i1 r\"............ .............;:..\ 7.!I\'/:i:-V1r--flJ ,..._ ~- ....-'... '-',- - -- ...0 CI 0 <v:O 0 : ,'" ~J,l. -I,,:,,\"~.:-:-:r\ ~~ -:,-5~.~~~~'Jl~",':'''>~~ I}}~ ' ~- ~,~:'O 0 0 . ~~'i'...~' :{;~-,J~'~-_';';j:..I~:'\_:;'"'-'J-:''''~.)/~={''''''.,' <' ,-".. 0 ~ ~ 0 e:;~~~' ....,.. I:","'-j-J::l-"I~~";"'-"'::":..l'}'li-:'\.~ '_;\;\''''I,\,f'l.''I-.o,,- , ~ ' ...:0 oAO :f:~ .!~'~~~_~-;Sc;.!"';-'..-':"~Y;)l;..,"'-:\::-~~-;:-:" ....~J~,-l~\~\-! . 'f~ il""~:"?;q.':..~':.:-''f.~""..~~,";7/'''''''''-'"'"'\->'-/''>_\;-'' ;-::'''~'''''''?;:_\'>.! '--- ... -~ ~"._.. .--.- ,'" --, '\I"',,,_,,~~v:., P,""" "j"" (0;, ,/ '. ~. O. ..~~S. ::: ....;.-"_...~.';;..~;/~.._: ...t.!;-=...~,;<.::...:;\-T\.....' ::t\!,-..:,I......"..'.. - ~ ... '... ~ I....,~".....-, ,.......,..,t- ~_..~_iA~Vr>-.t;t'...-.'I\t_\...\..". ~ .... 0/ - ~~ ~~ ljl.:-I\/.....-..~l .. )_I~/ ' . '-, :,.I.~~:I~r::{,I,'r~;.~,;:::~~ ~ - -~.... ~ '!: ~6 ;:~ ~.!'-::..;.#;....~.: 1,:--~..~0-:;.~'',. </~~'-.....:::";..;:-;.:t~71.:.t::I,,~;.;/":/ _-..-; ;:.-.,; ~ .~...,...l-:.\...~ ..-,.. ~kt~..:..;"., .,;,~~..-;,~':.1._\..';:'_4--:.-'if- - .'i".~'.~...: ~ 1_ ,.." .;;-',...."0,..----.-...: \ .....:'" ....../",/' r_"....,;.t:;...,'-,;'-J).."'-\.... ~.~~:..~ ~.'::~I_I,_,..I.:-I' ...~... '..s.....;.7-..::,,-'-\,-,- ....,-...r.:-;;"'"-I"j_,..._...:::.II"'- "".J-"':..I -,..,-.. ;:'C""-', (,' h' ~,~<' "'II' '''~''-'I-/''""'>''. .-: ~\\:r :-.:;::~ .",,~-". _11...-;_1/_..., ;\/~ '...,...';"I.::').,;;S"':7'_'-::',_..."..\':......t..-" ,.' I .~::':. ~~'~ ~,-i"'_ - .. ,-........ _.....- \::-) "'-"~-;-;I,\"..,...,\.....,;,.I,_r.::;,I" . ,":';:; _'~ ~I I,h:;.- ,..-l.:::..J;" \1>0;: l",'~(l.. ..!::;-",,_v~-......_....7''''.!I;-;'''l /00 ' ...... ..-:';,' -~)"I' {...-..."<'.... ;:. "'/"I\!':-'~:~1.~,,~...\ ::7 00" ,r-r- ~.~' -;~ ~ \-;'(r~~I)...:-'_- ,:{....../'--,::.:-..~.... );;~"","-->-', '{-'~.:"'''' -.) C '-0" -- :-..,~:.- . ..:~_,.........._\........,..i..:;....:\"~'J-...r.::~....-;~/1i \:"':r;-'-~"-'::-~Itt' .~.:J -' ~' ~~'''':\ '~'_ _r\. _"....:. ,(__..., ..~ ~:_~,;:>,,\, ~""" ~ - . ',.l/y.... ..j""__t~7",-'" '- 1....;I_.:!:'l~'j~_I."~~~...~'(.\.!:-~ \ _ -...f .,. ": '...i'I-..?lj\...-';:.:;-i';..:!;"J...... ',.,-;,>...t;l:.'f:,"';.- ~~::\~7'~":'''''''\ o~ / " (:2~;.:~~ :\~,;~~:2~1-'O~"';~ 0-0-0....01 - '~' o-;;r"~~ 0000\ _t..\",..~_' ,.. :-;-\"":'f~..~l 0 00 0 0 0/00 00 oOC" jOOo;o\ ,~ ....'"i- :;~:::: ,;,,\"..:...,J:(O'"~.o 0 0 00 0 ~ po ~ 00. ~\OO ~ 41 .~:\ ~:::~:::::" i,..I~<),,'~, 0000 00/,000 000' "......,.., X':~y' "-!. '1'... t::......, 0 ~ 0 .00 0 ' -!O 000 00...0 13 0. ... -~\. ....);..-, ....... -"~ 0-- 0 0 0 ,. '100 00. t,~~,]' ::::;:o-;:\;--...~-:\'~.......\ /C~o... Co 0.00 ,-ooo\ood .' r--';~ :::;::~..." _ \ ...,......, .......J 0_ 0' 0_ 0 00._--1 00 0 13 ~ '0 0 I o. v ~.:.;"'-. ':.:':9. -\- ... vI -'... - \ I Q 13 13 ,0 0 0 0 13 0 0\ ~ ~ ,_ . ..,:.::.~ "",::-\-,:-...):~..:\ 00." co 0 0 00 00 c) ~ - ....:.:.:0;." J", J,,~\'\I"" oPo 0 Q 0 c:> ....~ .:~:.:.:.:.: -! 1/ ./1'-,-,..... . (l 13 0 0 ... () 0, 0 0, ~ , ~~ ...:.:.:.::.:~~'~...., I,),c'}..~:.~;t--, 0'- 00 ''0 00 0. 0 0 0._0 ....: / f;1:;:......... '-,.. JI"', 0 0' 0 . . ~ · f/, ' if;.~:;_._............. . " -, -...'. 0 0 '0 h 0 .0 C? : " ! .Jiiii::::':':-;';.:.: O. 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 00. ,0 13 0),;; 13 J ~ S~: .... . .t ;_::;:::::::::~:: 00 C~-vOO 00 000;' C~. Co ()'.oo~~O~O ! ._..';"""e"~ r:>>:.'~~~,~~~,,!~. ---- ~~. .' .::::::::::;:;:::::~:' 0 13 0 0 00 00 0 '0 .< . 0 o. O""'~r:l (10 -- 0, ~ 0..0 ~ Wo 0 0. I~~f::::::.:.:-::::~:.:::;::::::::::;:::::::::.;.:.:.:.:;:: 0" 13 ~ 'r:'" ',' ':'I''':'~ f :;,:1=::':':':':':':';.;' 0<:>0 0 13 0 00 0 Po 0 0 0 0 0 ~\C 0 13 0 -- '''.c;, 13 0:0 ~ 0 0 13 0 0.. 0 0 0 . E!~!~~~~!~~~~!~!~!~!~~M~@t~i~ti1i! 00 ~0~"t~~5~#;~~:t~!!!i[tiiIi!!!!!!! ~ o~o:ooo:o~:oo/ POO/~\O: ;:;O~'" 0: ~OO ,,0 ~ "i04~ 0/;:0: 000,0 ~ O:oJ ~;:;~:;~;~: 00: 0000 0 00: ~ ~~.':<:<%&:;:::::;;;;;:::::::::::;:;:: O^~ 0 0 ~ O. ~.ot 00 0 ~ 00: ~j 0 ~ 00, O~; 00 00 ~~ " ~ Xz 0 ,~O"O:~. ~fff~f~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~p~ 0 0 0 ,OeD ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~t~~~~~~~;~~~~t~ 000 ~.~ ~:~t6' :OoO:~Q o:~~'-C~PO.O:~tO(O:~:OQ: ~f o~ ~:ti~~':oo1. t::.....:...._..:.:.;.:.:.:.:..;.:.:. .... .. .. - Q j!gi~:~:i.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:::;.:.: ....:.... 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 13 13 01 0 0 ~ 0 ~: 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1- :.......:.:.:.:.;.:..::::::::::::: :.:.:.: .:.: ....:. 0 0 I .,::::::::::;:~;::;::::::::::.::::: ::::.;::: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~O _': o....~ '0 0 0, 0 :~ '_ .~'-' f::;:;:;:::;:,:::::::. ::*::::::: .:.:.:' '.:. .... .:. 0 .:::,~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; .;:::::::: 0 r_ '1"T 1, 0 "'...~. 0 0 ".or;;,' 0 h 0 ' 0 , "I ....: . r-::::::':.:':'=~=:::: :::=:::::::: :::;::: =:.: :::: ::: 0 0 . :::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::;::. :.;.:::.:: 0 0 p , 0 0 J.. ;.cJ,., 0; (,'} u. ~/~-J..o r,'-Q _ 0- 0 00 0 0 ~ :Jj~~""';';.."'~ 1ii!!~iij!i!ili!Uflilil!lli!iiJiiiiiHH~:~;:;i~::::J_!!!f1!f!!f:;:t:::;;;;;;;)0: : 00 00 00 0 0 ~;,:'~~-~{~~~~~rJi: ;~~00~~0~;0~~qo~)~:!~~K~~;1 It:::::':"::'::':.:::: ::::::;::::::. ::::=::::E=:=: ::=::; ::::: :=;:' :~: ~~..-:::: ::::. :.:. :::: ~~U~~~~ 00 0 0 ~Po 0 ~ JOIOO bO ~~~;, ~lm'::::r,'~""'~~~~~'~; 0 ~ ; ~ .~,6.o 00 00 0 oo't ~~i::~~I~:;;,~11j3"' .!I!J.!I!IJ.IIIJ.ifiIJil!~iii!!iii!jiii~iiijiiiiiiiiiiiiji~iii~): :~~~~j:;~~~~: ^:o 0 ~ :0 ~o ~ /0:0 /0 ~oI~:~' ~~1~~::~~~L~~:~~~;~: :o~o:o: =o~o:o::r::o;i'; ,.. ~~f~~;~jf~l~e- 1:...........:.:.:=:-:.:.....:...$. .-_..-...-:...;.:.:.:..:.:.:........................_.~.. ....'J'- J_\"': ~ ,'" r_ 0 010010 0 00 0 0 0 ,~~_\ 1_\...., ._1,_\" "~...\_; { 0 0 o~ ~ 00 \ ~..6'0 0 "'" ,"'''',,_..._,..,._'..-~l - t~fi:~:!:!;r}i!!!;~J! :!;!,~;i:~;!:i:~;?r!:f;i{;i,ti:?i{; ,>;-~~:~,.:;->:;:;;.-:; 00000000" 0 00 00: 00 0: -'2?t;::5:;;~;.:.2;;Y;:>'.~~ 0 0 oO.~ooo: ::,~t~'~,::;~~~:::~~:::.;~ t:!:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:-~. ::;.:-:.:.;.:.:.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:::::::::::::.::;:::;:. ..t-,t t t!.., ;'.."','1_1'.f., "'\e 0 - ~ 00 0 coo 0 ~ 00 o:~ ;,_1, ~':;"",f ~ l; ~':-;~, ...t:;tr;? '\ ~ ,.,0 0 0 13 J 0 00" ~ -:::" /', <-...,:", ,.(.:.:..:.:.:.: ..:.:.:::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::_~ ::::;::::::::::;::;:::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::: "~!"'/~)''-Y!_''~-:''~I>.'{: ~ 000 000 13 0 0 000,., 0, '''~:,~,'~;~5r~ ~~.:~~2\'y '\ ~o 0 0 cor 0 0000 .....~:~:;: \'.:~~:7~':" ~:~:~:~:~:~:~ .. ~'-' '. " .~"" , '. ;c.."0-: " " / .~';-'. ~ ~- , / -~ -." ."'"" ,-.. - / -r.:::-" , :'" ., ."~ / ~:._- / '. .-. '. , , , ". --",-.,~" -."./- ., ,. ... ....' ,0"~ .._-, ;~. I I. .'. -- '-, , '.,,:-'- ~r::-:::. .< / ...-,~.'.- -,-",- I-seD ~ Source: City of Dublin /. , .. / " ., ...:'l' , .- " , - :<)~ Legend , B E3 00 m [E o m , , ~ ~ -'''-', {~.G$~~j ~ t..:,~. ~~~ 1 ,::~, " ~ ~ ~ 1'\ -' , Tassajara Creek Intermittent Streams Spring, Seep or Impoundment Golden Eagle Potential Kit Fox Dens Red Legged Frog Location Red-Tailed Hawk or other Raptor Nest Nol1hern Riparian Woodland Arroyo Willow Riparian Woodland Alkali Grassland Introduced Annual Grassland Cultivated Developed ~ Figure 16 Environmental Resources providcd to the California Department of Fish and Game and the City of Dublin at least 10 days prior to the start of construction. If the surveys state that plants are prescnt and will be disturbed due to grading or construction, the projcct developer shall protect or relocate the plant(s) as required by the respective resource agcncy. Copics of the surveys and measures to protect or relocate plants as required by the rcsource agency shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building pernlit, whichcver is issued first. The project could impact the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, and the western pond turtlc. The California red-legged frog could be impacted dUling construction in the creek channcl. Recent surveys have determincd the presence of brceding Califomia tiger salamander in the upper pond. Tiger salamanders could be impacted if construction cquipment cnters salamander habitat near thc upper pond. Thc western pond turtle could be impacted if constmction occurs within the drainage ditches. The following measures shall bc incorporated into the project to reduce the impacts to the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamandcr, and the western pond turtle to less-than-significan t. Mitigation Mcasure 18 ffrequired by the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, surveys for the California tigcr salamander, California red-legged frog, and the wcstern pond turtlc shall be conducted at least 60 days prior to the start of construction at both ponds. Mitigation Measure 19 If the California tigcr salamander is found within the area proposed for grading and construction or in close proximity to the construction arca and could in the opinion of the resource agency be impacted, a California tiger salamandcr management plan shall bc prepared by the project developer and approved by the California Dcpartmcnt of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Service prior to the start of construction. The plan shall detail how the California tiger salamandcr will be managcd before and during construction activities and shall include the following: a) Installation of a tcmporary herpetological fence prior to any ground disturbance around the entire development footprint, or the area designated by the resource agencies, which shall prcvent the Califomia tiger salamandcr from entering the construction site and shall remain in place until a pernlancnt fcnce or balTier approved by the rcsource Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Alll1exation/Prezoning PA 04-16 64 agenclcs is installed. A maintenance schedule for the temporary fence shall be provided. b) A trapping and relocation plan shall be prepared that details how aestivating California tiger salamander individuals will be adcquately relocated from the development footprint and into permanently suitable aestivation habitat. c) Exclusionary balTiers shall bc installed prior to the onset of winter rains that stimulatc California tiger salamander to move to breeding ponds. A biologist shall monitor the installation of the barriers to ensure they are properly installed. d) The barrier fencing shall be maintained and monitored continuously for the duration of project construction to ensure that migrating and dispersing California tiger salamanders do not re-enter the construction area. e) The exclusion fencing shall remain in place until the construction oflhe projcct is completed. f) A hiologist shall be present during grading and ground disturbance construction activitics to ensure there is no take of Cali fornia tiger salamanders. g) Grading and vegctation elcaring within 750 feet of the California tiger salamander breeding pond shall not bc conductcd during the brceding and migrating season (Novcmber-June). Mitigation Measure 20 A pernlanent herpctological fence or banier shall bc installcd around the north, east, and southenl area of the residential footprint following construction activitics to prevcnt movemcnt of the California tiger salamandcr into the dcveloped area. Mitigation Measure 21 Califomia tiger salamandcr larval surveys shall be conductcd in the unnamed tributary proposed for the storm water outfall prior to the start of construction to determine if the salamander is using the area for brecding. If it is detennined that the California tigcr salamander uscs the area proposed for the outfall as a breeding location, the California tiger salamander management plan shall be modified to include appropriate measures during construction of the outfall to protect known or potential breeding sitcs within the unnamed creek and cither protect or relocate any California tiger salamanders that are present in the unnamed creek area as approved by thc California Department of Fish and Gamc and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 65 There is habitat on the site to support a wide variety of foraging raptor species including the red-tail hawk, American kestrel, bUlTowing owl, golden eagle, and northern halTier. The red-tail hawk, American kestrel, and northern hanicr were obscrved to forage on the site during a reconnaissance survey. The blue gum cucalyptus trecs on the westem property boundary, on the east sidc of the east fork of Tassajara Crcek werc obscrved to support a nesting pair of red-tail hawks. If the grassland areas become tall and can provide hcavy cover, then they would be suitable for the northcrn halTicr to nest on the ground. Raptors are known to nest on the site based on thc presence of suitable habitat; other raptors could ncst on thc site in addition to the red-tail hawk." The following measure shall be incorporatcd into the project to rcduce impacts to raptors to less-than- significant. Mitigation Measurc 22 A prc-construction survey shall be conducted for ncsting rap tors prior to the start of grading or construction within 100- feet of any known nesting tree. Ifrequircd, raptor surveys shall bc perforn1cd prior to January to idcntify any potential nesting trees prior to birds laying eggs. Oncc eggs have bccn laid, a buffer shall be cstablishcd around the nest tree and the site protected until August], or until the young have fledged. The buffer shall bc determined by a qualified biologist (as dctcrn1ined by the City). Vegctation and tree removal shall occur outside of the raptor-breeding scason (February-August), as much as practical. The tricolored blackbird was observed to forage on the site in largc flocks in excess of 300 birds. They arc wintcr migrants that feed within the grassland areas but the property does not support habitat in which this spccies could ncst. Mitigation Measurc 3.7/20.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR shall bc incorporated into thc project and requires prcconstmction surveys 60 days prior to habitat modification to verify thc presence of tricolored blackbirds. The project will have no impact to thc tricolorcd blackbird. The California horned lark may also occur on the propcrty as it contains highly suitable habitat for the bird's occurrence.IG If prcsent during grading and construction, the California horned lark and other ground nesting birds could be impacted. The following measure shall be incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to the Califomia horncd lark to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 23 A pre-construction survey shall bc conducted for nesting California horned lark and other ground nesting birds prior to the start of grading or constmction. If present, a buffcr with protective fencing shall bc provided around the nesting area as 15 Biological Resources Analysis for the Mission Peak Property, Olberding Environmental, Inc. July 2004, page 19. '" Ibid, page 20. Dublin Community Development Department 66 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 detennined by a qualified biologist. The fencing shall not be removcd until the young have flcdged as detcrmined by a qualified biologist. Bun-owing owls have bcen documented in northern and northcastern Livennore in grazed grassland habitats. The habitat on the project site is suitable for bUlTowing owl nesting and foraging. There is an abundance of ground squilTel colonies on the site that could be us cd by a nesting pair of bUlTowing owls. The short grassland habitat is optimal for hunting. A bUlTowing owl survey conducted in early February 2003 did not idcntify bUlTowing owl use of the site, but the propcrty remains suitable for these raptors. The project could impact burrowing owls, if present on the site. The following mcasures shall be incorporatcd into the project to rcducc impacts to bUlTowing owls to less-than- significant. Mitigation Measurc 24 A pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualificd biologist for bun-owing owls prior to any ground disturbance bctween September I and January 31. If ground disturbance is dclayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey, the sitc shall be re-surveyed. If .no over-wintering birds are present, bUITOWS shall be removed prior to the nesting scason. If over-wintering birds are prescnt, no disturbancc shall occur within 150 feet of occupied bUlTows. If owls must be movcd away from the disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures shall bc preparcd and implementcd according to current California Departmcnt of Fish and Gamc burrowing owl guidelines, approved by the Dcpartment, and completed prior to construction. Mitigation Measure 25 If constmction is schedulcd during thc nesting season (February I .- September I), a preconstmction survey shall be conducted within 30 days prior to constmction or ground disturbance. A minimum 250-foot buffer shall be maintained during the breeding season around active bUlTowing owl nesting sites identified in pre-constmction surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals. Mitigation Measure 26 If destruction of occupied bUlTOWS during either breeding or non-brceding season, or any bUITOWS that were found to be occupicd during pre-construction surveys is unavoidable, a strategy will be dcvcloped to replacc such bUITOWS by enhancing existing bUITOWS or creating arti ficial burrows at a 2: I ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat, and will include pe1111anent protcction of a minimum of 6.5 acrcs of bUlTowing owl habitat per pair or Dublin Conmmnity Development Department 67 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anl1cxationJPrezoning PA 04-16 unpaired resident owl. A plan shall be prcpared by thc projcct developcr and approved by California Department of Fish and Game describing creation or enhancemcnt of bUlTows, maintenance of bUITOWS and management of foraging habitat, monitoring procedures and significant criteria, funding assurance, annual reporting requirements to California Department of Fish and Game, and contingcncy and remediation measures. The project is consistcnt with the land use assumptions for the site that were in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EJR. All relevant Gcneral and Spccific Plan policies and all adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the project. The following additional mitigation measures reflect rcfined surveys of the site and updated agency protocols. The following measures, ineluding those identificd by thc project biologist associated with site-specific surveys, shall be incorporated into the project to reduce potential impacts to special status plants and animals to lcss-than- significant. Mitigation Measurc 27 The projcct developer shall prepare a vegetation enhancement/managemcnt plan for all open space areas with the intcnt to enhance the biologic potcntial of the area as wildlife habitat (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.7/2.0). This shall bc ineluded in the Stage 2 Planncd Development standards as a tentative map condition. Mitigation Measure 28 Thc project developer shall prcpare a detailed revegetation/restoration plan for all disturbed areas that arc to remain undeveloped (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.7/3.0). This shall be included in the Stage 2 Planned Development standards as a tentative map condition. Mitigation Measure 29 The projcct developer shall prcpare an Open Space Management Plan for the 46.8-acre open space area in the east portion of the sitc. The Plan shall also incIudc ll1anagemcnt of thc habitat for special status species that may be present and utilize the opcn space. The Plan shall also include protection measures such as fencing, signage, reduced or indirect light, pet control measures, and habitat monitoring and reporting. This plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the start of construction. The approved Plan shall he submitted to the Dublin COIlUl1unity Development Dcpaliment Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 68 City prior to the issuance of a grading or building pelmit, whichever is issued first. Mitigation Measnre 30 A qualified biologist (as idcntified by thc City) shall monitor all construction activity to ensure that all protective measures required by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Scrvice are implemented and maintained (i.e. fencing is installed propcrty and maintained, preserved areas are not disturbed, etc.). The biological monitor shall havc the authority to suspend any and all construction activity if protective measures are not properly followed and/or if activities pose an immediate threat to preserved sensitive resources. The biological monitor shall also have the authority to contact the California Dcpartment of Fish and Game and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to rcport any mortality of listed species during construction. Mitigation Measure 31 All project construction cmp10yees and personnel shall receive an cducational training program that ineludes information on sensitive species identification and their potential habitat, approved mitigation mcasures for the project and actions employees should take if a sensitive specics is cncountcrcd. Mitigation Measure 32 The unnamed tributary stream cOlTidor shall be revegetated with native plant species to enhance thcir natural appearance and improve habitat values (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendmcnt/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.7/8.0). Mitigation Measure 33 All grading activities shall occur during the dlY season (as much as practical) sincc the California red-leggcd frog will be less likely to be present in upland areas. b) 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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? LS/M. The project proposes to construct an outfall in the unnamed stream to allow the discharge of project surface water. The construction of the outfall would require the removal and destruction of riparian habitat. This is a significant impact. The following measurc shall be incorporated into thc projcct to rcduce the impact to the existing riparian habitat to construct the outfall to less-than-significant. Mitigation Mcasure 34 The riparian habitat rcmoved by the project shall be replaced by the crcation of new riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (acreage crcated/acreage removed), subject to the approval of California Dublin Community Development Department 69 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-t6 Department of Fish and Game and the City. The project dcveloper shall develop and implement a Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to fully compensate for impacts to riparian habitat, including hcritage trees. The riparian area disturbed during construction of the outfall shall be restored according to the Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and ineluded in the 3:1 ratio. The Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall inelude the mitigation design, riparian species planting desii,'11 (utilizing native species found in Tassajara Creek), sources for plant materials, maintenancc methods (ineluding ilTigation, deer protection, and weed management), monitoring procedurcs and performance criteria, reporting requiremcnts, and contingency measures in case of mitigation failure. The project developer shall provide a secure funding source (such as perfornlance bond) for the implementation of the mitigation plan and long- term maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area. The created mitigation arca must be preserved in perpetuity (such as through a permanent conservation easement or other similar measure). The mcasures within the Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be consistent with the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Strcam Restoration Program and the Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Habitat Management Plan. The Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Gamc and the City, prior to the issuance of a grading pcrnlit. Thc Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall require 10 years of monitoring and arumal reports shall be submitted to the City and Califomia Depat1ment ofFish and Game. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? LS/M The project will impact existing wetlands on the site. The project will require the placement of up to 3 cubic yards of fill material (rock rip rap and coir fabric) into 0.007 acres of jurisdictional wetlands/waters associated with the installation of a stonn watcr outfall structure. This is a significant impact. Thc biologist for the project applicant has applied [or and reccived a Streambcd Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is in the process of issuing the Section 401 Certification. The biologist is meeting shortly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss mitigation of wetland removal. Receipt of the rcquired pennits/certifications from the respective resourcc agencies would mitigate Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 70 wetland impacts. The following measurc is recommended to reduce wctland impacts of thc project to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measnre 35 The project developer shall obtain all required pernlits/certifications/agreements from California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the issuance of a grading or constmction permit, whichever is issued first. The developer shall provide proof of the permits/certi fications/agreements to the City prior issuance of any pennits. 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? LS/M. The project is locatcd within the area that is in the northwest portion ofthc San Joaquin kit fox range (O'Farrell 1983) and appears to be ccologically suitable for kit fox due to the vegetative conditions (i.e. grasslands) and availability of suitable prey species. In the Camp Parks area just west of Tassajara Creck, surveys have failed to documcnt the presencc of kit fox (Balestrcri 1981, Jones and Stokes 1983, U.S. Corps of Engineers 1986). CDFG records inelude one documented occurrcnce of kit fox and den within the northeastern part of the GP A arca (Morrel 1975). Surveys conducted by BioSystems in 1989 (Draft Biological Assessment: BioSystems Analysis 1989) rcsulted in one potential kit fox track and 41 potential dens in the GPA and Spccific Plan area.l7 Thcre are some indications that kit fox may bc expanding their range in Contra Costa County (Suc Orloff: personal communication). These data coupled with appropriate telTain and vegetation co vcr, historic evidcnce of kit fox OCClllTenCe in the GPA area, and the fact that the GP A area is contiguous with known populations to the northeast (Los Vaqueros) (Westlar 1987, Orloff et.al 1986), suggests that kit fox could potentially inhabit the GPA area. CDFG reviewed thc status of the kit fox in the GPA arca; based on rcsults of surveys conducted by BioSystems (1989) and others, thc agency could not determinc that dcvelopment in the GPA and SP area would not negatively affect the kit fox by climinating suitablc habitat. CDFG did state their ".. .initial deternlination that the majority of the planning area, with the exception of the deve10pcd Santa Rita arca of Tassajara Road, is potential kit fox habitat" (CDFG 1992).'8 Since ccrtification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, thc USFWS has updated its recommendations for survey protocols and protection measures (USFWS 1997 and 1999). A number of survcys for kit fox have been conducted in the Eastern Dublin area (RT. Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent North Livermore Vallcy (HT Harvey & 17 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, DEIR, August 28, 1992, page 3.7-4. IS Ibid Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnI1cxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 71 Associates 1997b). None of these surveys detected kit fox with the exception of a single kit fox detected on two separate nights while spotlighting approximately two miles north of the North Livermore site in Contra Costa County on Morgan TelTitory Road. Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the Eastern Dublin and North Livermore Valley arcas since 1997, none have been detected. Based on negative rcsults within the Eastern Dublin area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to bc absent from the Eastern Dublin area (see analysis presented in HT Harvey & Associates 1997c).19 Thc City adopted Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan contains guidelines for avoiding, minimizing, and offsctting impacts to the Kit fox. Many of the guidelines follow Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox (USFWS April 1989) and Rado (In Prcss)20 All projccts within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan must comply with and implement the Plan. Although the San Joaquin Kit Fox is not anticipated to be prescnt on the site, or use the site as a migratory route, the following mcasure from the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR shall be incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to the San Joaquin Kit Fox to less-th an-significan t. Mitigation Mcasurc 36 The project shall comply with thc Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protcction Plan. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? LS/M. The City of Dublin has an ordinancc for thc removal of hcritagc trces and their protection during construction2! The project may require the removal of heritage trees during constnlction of the outfall structure in thc unl1amed creek along the northern project boundary. The project dcveloper will be requircd to obtain a trcc removal permit from the City prior to the removal of any heritage trees. Thc developer will also be rcquired to protect any existing heritage trees during project construction in accordance with the City's Hcritage Tree ordinance. The provisions of the ordinance rcquirc that impacts to hcritage trees be reduced to less-than- signilicant. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? LS/M. The City does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. There arc no other habitat conservation plans that are applicable to the project. The project would have a less-than-significant impact to any adoptcd conscrvation plans. 19 Dublin Ranch West Project, Draft Supplemental EIR, November 2004, page 54. 20 East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan 21 City of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 5.60 Ileritage Trees. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 72 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting The Fallon Crossing site is uscd as grazing land and therc are no buildings on the site. Thc Fredrich property has a rural residence that would remain upon annexation of the site into thc City of Dublin. The existing residcnce on the Fredrich property is not historically significant. There wcre no cultural resources identified on either site by the Program ErR for thc Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. A cultural rccords search of the area proposed for the realignment and intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road was conductcd by the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University in October 2002. The proposed realignment and intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road is adjacent to both the Fallon Crossing and Fredrich properties. Therefore, the cultural records search that was conductcd for the rcalignment and intersection of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road is applicable to thc Fallon Crossing project. That search included consultation with the California Office of Historic Preservation records, base maps, historic maps and litcrature for Alameda County of file at thc Northwest Information Center. No rccorded Native Amcrican or historic period archaeological rcsourccs were identified in thc area proposed for the intcrsection of thc two roads22 Native American archaeological sites in this portion of Alameda County tend to be located on alluvial flats at the basc of hills ncar sources of water, such as springs. Since there are areas of the Fallon Crossing site that are located along alluvial benches associated with the confluence of the unnamed tributary on the sitc and Tassajara Creek, it is possible that unknown archaeologically sensitive areas cxist on the site. Several Native American archacological sitcs have bccn recorded downstream along Tassajara Creek south of the project site near 1-580. Bccausc of the setting of the project site and the presence of archaeological resources in the general area, therc is a potential for cultural resources to exist on thc site. Proi ect Impacts a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in S\l 5064.5? NI. Therc are no existing buildings on the site. The development ofthc site would have no impact any historical resources since none exist. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to s] 5064.5? LS/M. Although no archaeological resources are known to cxist on the Fallon Crossing site, there arc prehistOl;c sites within the specific plan area, including cultural resources in thc general area near 1-580. Bccause the site has not been surveyed by a registered archaeologist, pre-historic resourccs may be prescnt on the site and if disturbed during grading and construction there could be a significant impact. ~~ Initial Study, Tilssajara Road/Road Ultimate Precise Alignment, March 2004, page 60 Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 73 CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 requires archaeological and historic resources to be cvaluated upon their discovery during construction and appropriate mitigation to avoid or protect the resource. If resources are present, measures are listed in the Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan to mitigate the disturbance of the resources during grading and construction of the project. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/6.0 from the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan, along with the requirements of CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, shall be implemented into the project to reducc cultural impacts to a lcss-than-signilicant lcvel. The mitigation measurcs include: Mitigation Measure 37 Mcchanical and/or hand subsurface testing on all locations of prehistoric resources to detennine the prcsence or absence of midden deposits shall be conducted prior to thc start of grading (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.9/1.0). Mitigation Measure 38 All locations containing either midden components or concentrations of cultural materials located on thc surface shall bc recorded on State of California site survey fornls (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Mcasure 3.9/2.0). Mitigation Measure 39 Evaluativc testing shall bc required if the proposed devclopmcnt would directly or indirectly impact recorded and mapped locations of rcsources (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.9/3.0). Mitigation Measure 40 A qualified archaeologist shall develop a protection program for "significant" resources whose condition would be altered by the proposed development (Eastcm Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.9/4.0). Mitigation Mcasurc 41 Grading and construction shall cease in the event that historic or prehistoric remains are discovered during such activities (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.915.0). Mitigation Measure 42 As part of the development application process steps shall be taken to ensure that cultural resourccs are not impacted: a. Detcrmine whether the subject site is identified as having prehistoric or historic resources potentially located on it based on thc first stage cultural resource survey of the area. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationlPrezoning PA 04-16 74 b. Determine thc lcvel of archaeological or historical significance in the second level of detailed research and field reconnaissance for sites with potential resources. c. Develop a mitigation plan consistent with policies in the Specific Plan and CUlTent CEQA Guidelines concerning cultural resources for site containing significant resources (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.9/6.0). c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? LS/M.. There are no known paleontological sites in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area based on infonnation in the Eastern Dublin EIR. However, to date a paleontological survey of the site to detelTl1ine the presence or absence of paleontological resources has not been conducted. Development activities are a potcntially significant impact although paleontological resourccs are not expected on the site because they have not been uncovered on other propcr1y in thc area a site survey would confirm whether or not thcy exist on thc site. The incorporation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential paleontological resource impacts to less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 43 The project developer shall prepare a paleontological survey of the site prior to the issuance of a grading permit to detcrmine if paleontological resourccs are present. If prescnt,any rcsources that would be impacted by the project shall be protected in place, excavatcd and relocated, etc. as recommended by a paleontologist and approved by thc City. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? NI. Thcre are no cemeteries on the site and there are known human remains on the site, ineluding those interred outside of formal cemetcries. Because there arc no cemetcries on the site or known human remains, there is no potential for human remains to bc uncovered during project grading and construction. Thc project would have no impact to human remains. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Environmental Setting The site is part of a broad north-south trcnding plain known as the Livcrmore-Amador Valley. According to historic geologic studics in thc area23, the site is underlain by poorly consolidated, non-marinc deposit sedimentary rocks of the Tassajara Fornlation. "Dibb1ee, 1980; Crane, 1988 Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Propcliies Annexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 75 The project area is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone for active faults defined by the State of California (Davis 1982), and no faults are mapped on thc site24 Major active faults in the region that influence devclopment on the project site for gcologic activity the San Andreas, Hayward, Calavares and Grecnville Faults, located 30, 11, 4, and 7 miles from the site, respectively. The topography on the site ranges from 450 fcct above sea level at the bottom of the creek along the northwest project boundary to approximately 705 feet above sea level at the top of the ridge along the northern project boundary. Slopes range from 5% to approximately 50% on the ridgc along the north and east project boundary. The environmental constraints present on the site are shown in Figure 17. A preliminary geologic and geotechnical report" was prepared for thc Fallon Crossing site. A peer review of the preliminary geoteelmical reports was prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc.26 The rep0l1s are ineluded as Appendix B. The Fcbruary 17, 2005 peer rcvicw indicates several issues that needed to be resolved prior to the next planning stage of the projcct. The issues include: 1) additional slide repair would be requircd to the slide abovc thc northerly cdge of the development area and the presence of slides to the east of the development arca may result in ongoing erosion of the slope tocs and deposition of eroded material in the proposed stornl drain; and 2) piping was noted in the proposed water quality pond that would require further invcstigation. Rcgulatory Framework The City of Dublin has adoptcd Ordinance No. 52-87, which requires improvements be setback a minimum of20 feet from tops of banks of creeks, or from a 2:1 projected slope from the toe of slope if the bank is ilTegular to ensure structural safety and minimize the effects of bank erosion. However, the Eastern Dublin Comprchcnsive Streambed Rcstoration Proh'Tam is applicable for dcvelopment in thc Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan area. This Program requires a greater setback from the top of the streambed bank than Ordinance 52-87. The Eastern Dublin Comprehcnsive Strcambed Restoration Program was adopted to fulfill a requircd mitigation measure of the Eastern Dublin ElR that requires a minimum 100-foot setback from the top of bank of major crccks to ensure both structural safety to buildings and related improvements adjaccnt to creeks and to provide a buffer of scnsitivc habitat within the creeks. Thc rcquircd sctback of the projcct from the unnamed creek along the n0l1hern project boundary is dcternlincd by thc critcria of the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Streambed Rcstoration Program, which is 100 feet from the top of bank." 24Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, Mission Peak Property, Tassajara Road, Alameda County, California, September 19, 2004, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, page 3. 25 Design Level Geoteclmical Investigation, Mission Peak Property, Tassajara Road, Alameda County, California, September 19, 2004, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. 26 Kleinfeldcr Geotechnical Peer Review Letter dated February 17,2005. 27 Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, June 1996, page 59. Dublin Community Development Department 76 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnllcxationJPrczoning PA 04-16 r-.. / -::' / ~i--~/~' :-;,. 'So:,,~' '., " , '6'c:._ , / '.~ .,." ~ . .f , ..-....; " .,0.' / " ", '---'~-..- " r ',,"- ',~, '," , o , \ '. , ':c..:,;., /. -.,' , .' ./ -.././ "', / / -.:<). /.- / ',' - ,,' / , ., ":,-.:' ,. / ,_/-- ~ .,,~ ,---- , ('--' . "~'C . , r-..---..---..---..~~~---.. . 01€.? ;;c.'~' r:':::l::: .,". . '. , .,~;.',::O" . . . . . . I ~ . S . ~ /' I 0,...,.... I ~,-'""...~. .. r.T .. . ~'-.r r . . I I .~. l--sea Source: City of Dublin Legend ~ ~ Geotechnical Avoidance Area Geotechnical Avoidance Area - Infrastructure Feasible Slopes over 30% 100-Year Flood Plain Tassajara Creek% Intermittent Streams Sensitive Habitat Area Golden Eagle Protection Zone Visually Sensitive Ridgeland -No Development fifiK;'ii[ Visually Sensitive Ridgeline - Restricted Development ~.... .... ......... - BBl'..,.'";, .'-, ~~..' :.'~--- . .' 8 G3 00 I....! .. rJjOR'~ /; .- ! ~ I I ~~ Figure 17 Environmental Constraints The Dublin Grading Ordinance has specific requirements to reducc and m1l111TI1ze dust, soil crosion, and scdimentation. The requirements includc hydro seeding bare slopes, installation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), ctc. Lot lincs to accommodatc drainage can be adjusted somewhat to accommodate larger lots at thc Stage 2 development plan approval. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has policies to protcct pcople and properly from seIsmIc activity. Thesc policies inelude: Policy 6-40. No structures shall be located on slopes of betwecn 20 to 30%, where this location is downslope of colluvium or dormant landslidcs on slopes over 30%, unless dctailed fcasibility and design-level geotcchnical invcstigations indicate that development can be safely undertaken and/or mitigation measures can be implemented which would reduce impacts to a level of insignificance. Policy 6-41. No structure shall be located on slopes of 10-30%, where undcrlain by highly expansive soils, areas of unconsolidated fill, or within 100' of incised stream channels, unless detailcd feasibility and dcsign-level gcotcchnical investigations are undertaken and required engineered design mitigations performed. Policy 6-42. Developmcnt is generally not pennitted in arcas with slopes of 30 percent or greater. Limited grading and rcpair of landslides would be pennitted in areas with slopes of 30 percent or more whcn: . The areas involved is less than 3 acrcs in size; is less than 20% of a larger developable area; and is sUlTounded by topo,,'Taphy which is prcdominantly less than 30 perccnt; and is nccessary to creatc effectively buildable areas or access to areas with slopes predominantly 30 percent and . It is necessary to create effective buildable areas or access to arcas with slopes predominantly less than 30 percent. Proicct Impacts a) 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, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Falllt Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Dublin Community Development Department 78 Mission Pcakirredrich Properties AnnexationlPrezoning PA 04-16 Special Puhlication 42. LS. There are no known active faults on the site or in the immcdiate projcct area that are expectcd to impact the project. Howcvcr, secondary impacts due to ground shaking from known major active faults in the region are anticipated to cause seismic activity on the site that could impact buildings and people. Thc risk of fault rupturc on the site is anticipatcd to be low, since the nearcst known active or potentially active faults arc more than four miles from the site. Thc design and construction of the project is required to bc in compliance with the Uniform Building Codc bascd on seismic activity for the area. With UBC compliance, thc projcct will not be cxposcd to rupture of an ca11hquakc fault to any greater dcgree than identified in thc Specific Plan EIR. As a rcsult, the cffccts of a scismic event on the project will be lcss- than-significant. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? LS/M. As discussed abovc, therc arc no active faults either on or within four miles of the site. However, the project site is subject to severe ground shaking from active and potentially active faults in the greater Bay Area, including the Hayward, San Andreas, Greenville and Calaveras faults The potential primary effects for carthquake ground shaking is common to the San Francisco Bay region and was identified as significant and unavoidablc in the Eastcm Dublin EIR's Impact 3.6/B. The projcct can be expccted to experience at least one moderate to severe earthquake during the life span of thc project. Ground shaking is a hazard that cannot be eliminatcd, but can be pm1ially mitigatcd through proper attention to scismic stnlctural design and observancc of good construction practices. It is thc opinion of the gcotechnical consultant that the structural integrity of the proposed buildings is a primary factor in detcrmining potcntial seismic damage and that thc degrce of seismic damage would only he nominally influcnced by thc foundation system selected. Thc gcotechnical consultant recommcnds at a minimum that thc buildings be designed in conformance with thc currcnt edition of the Califomia Building Code (CBC).28 This recommendation is consistent with adopted Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 from the Eastern Dublin EIR. Thc secondary effccts of earthquake ground shaking inelude possible seismically induccd Jandsliding, differential compaction, and/or settlement. Sccondary effects wcrc considercd potentially significant in the Eastern Dublin EIR (lmpact 3.6/c). The secondary effect of ground shaking on devc10pment on the site is addressed in the Eastern Dublin ElK The measures listed in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce ground- shaking impacts would mitigate primary and secondary ground shaking impacts, and are consistent with the recommcndation in the Design Levcl Geotechnical Investigation29 to 28 Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, Mission Peak Property, Tassajara Road, Alameda County, Califomia, September 19, 2003, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, page 20. 29 Ibid, page 20. Dublin Community Development Department 79 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnncxationJPrezoning PA 04-16 construct all huildings in conforn1ance with the current cdition of the California Building Code would reduce impacts to less than significant. The project is consistcnt with the Gencral Plan and Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan land usc plan and severities analyzed in Eastern Dublin EIR and would not have any new or greater seismic ground shaking impacts than identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Thc incorporation of mitigation mcasures 3.6/3.0 through 3.6/80 of the Specific Plan EIR shall bc incorporated into the project to rcduce secondary ground shaking effects to a 1evcl of lcss-than-significant. The following mitigation measures from thc Eastern Dublin Spccific Plan EIR shall be incorporated into the project: Mitigation Mcasnre 44 Thc project developcr shall be requircd to provide the appropriate grading and design to completely remove unstable and potentially unstable matelials in hillsidc areas whcre devclopment may require substantial grading (Eastem Dublin Gcncral Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.6/3.0). Mitigation Measure 45 All engineered retention stmctures and surface and subsurfacc drainage improvements shall be used as appropriate to improvc the stability of side hill fills and potentially unstable materials, particularly colluvium, not entirely rcmoved by grading (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Mcasure 3.6/4.0). Mitigation Mcasnrc 46 All seismically induced fill settlement shall bc reduccd by requiring properly designed fills with kcyways and subsurface drainage, and which are adequately compacted (i.e. minimum 90% relative compaction) (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amcndment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.6/5.0). Mitigation Measure 47 All roads, structural foundations, and underground utilities shall bc designed to accommodate estimated settlement without failure, especially across transitions between fills and cuts, and to remove or reconstruct potentially unstablc stock pond embankments in developed areas (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.6/6.0). Mitigation Measnrc 48 The project shall be required to perforn1 design level geotechnical invcstigations prior to the issuancc of any permits (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Mcasllre 3.6/7.0). Dublin Community Development Department Mission PcakIFredrich Propcliies Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 80 Mitigation Measnre 49 Thc project devcloper shall prep arc an earthquake preparedness plan and thc appropriatc emergcncy measures shall bc disscminatcd to all project residents (Eastel11 Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.6/8.0). iii) Seismic-related ground /izi/ure, including liquefaction? Nl. A geotechnical report was prcpared for the site." The gcotechnical report states, 'There is no cvidence of historic ground failure dne to liquefaction on the site, nor did we encounter any earth materials which might be susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the risk of liquefaction is believed to be low."ll Based on the gcotechnical report that was prcpared for the site, there is no impact to the projcct due to liqucfaction and no mitigation mcasures arc required. iv) Landslides? LS/M. There arc hills on the site proposed for grading that are greatcr than 30% slope. Grading the hillsides and slopes could cause landslides and impact the project. Rcgionallandslide mapping by the U.S. Gcological Survey (Nilsen, 1975) showed several landslides on the site, including three in the area of thc current proposed dcvelopmcnt. This is a potcntially significant impact. During a 2001 sitc investigation Bcrlogar Geotechnical Consultants pcrformcd preliminary tcst pit exploration of the landslides. The currcnt design-Icvel invcstigation also inclndcd test pits and borings in confinned and suspected landslidc areas. The total information resulted in the depiction of three landslides in thc area of the proposed developmcnt. (See Appendix B) In addition, thc thrcc pertincnt landslidcs are givcn the letter designations A, B, and C. The threc mappcd landslides correspond to three of Nilscn's (1975) interpreted landslides. Thcre are additional likely or suspcctcd landslide dcposits elsewhere on the Mission Peak property, but thcsc are not discusscd sincc they are well outside (n0l1h and east) of the proposed arca of devclopment,". Potentially significant mudl10w impacts to the project could also occur due to the potential for landslidcs. The geoteclmical report recommends remedial treatment of each landslide. The treatment of cach landslide depcnds on a number of factors including the rclationship of the landslide to thc proposed development, the type and size of thc landslidc, and individual charactcristic or each landslide. Bascd on the rcvicw of a conccptual grading plan, the geotechnical consultant rccommends thc following mcasures be incorporatcd to reduce potential landslide impacts, which could includc mudllow. The mcasures recommended by the geotcchnical consultant to mitigate potential landslide impacts are present cd in Table 3. 30 Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, Mission Peak Property, Tassajara Road, Alameda County, California, September 19,2003, Berlogar Gcoteclmical Consultants. 31 Ihid, page 20. 32 Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, Mission Peak Property, Tassajara Road, Alameda County, California, September 19, 2004, Berlogar Geoteclmical Consultants, pages 5-6. Dublin Community Development Department 81 Mission Pcaklfredrich Properties AJU1exation/Prezoning PA 04-16 Table 3 Recommcnded Landslide Corrcctivc Measures Landslide Designation - Preliminary Mitigation Measures A Landslides situated at or near the grading limits can generally be mitigated by removing all the landslide debris and reconstructing the slope with e--~ - engineered fill with a keyway and sub drain. B The portions of the landslides located within the grading limits that aTe not removed by design cut should be over excavated and replaced with engineered fill with a keyway and sub drain. C Landslides situated at or near the grading limits can generally be mitigated by remOVing all the landslide debris and reconstmcting the slope with en,gineered fill with a keyway and sub drain. The rema1111l1g landslides locatcd outside of the dcvelopment can gcncrally be left 111- place and no rcmcdial measures are required. The City of Dublin Grading Ordinance rcgulates grading activity on the project. The cnforcement of the Grading Ordinance in conjunction with incorporation of the following mitigation measures from thc project geotechnical rep0l1 would reduce impacts from landslidcs to a Icss-than-significant levcl. Mitigation Measure 50 Landslide A - Removc all the landslide debris and reconstruct thc slope with cngineered fill with a keyway and subdrain for landslides situatcd at or near the grading limits. Mitigation Measure 51 Landslidc B - For portions of the landslides located within the grading limits that are not rcmoved by design cut, over cxcavate and replace with engineered fill with a kcyway and sub drain. Mitigation Measure 52 Landslide C - Remove all the landslide debris and reconstruct the slope with engineered fill with a keyway and subdrain for landslides situatcd at or near thc grading limits. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LS/M. Soil crosion and the loss of topsoil could occur during project grading and constmction, especially during the wintcr months when rainfall typically occurs, if the soil is not properly protected. The exposure of dirt to rainfall and wind could cause soil crosion impacts that could be substantial. This is a potentially significant impact. The projcct proposes a detention pond on the north side of the project within the creek setback area. All surface water from the developed area ofthe sitc would bc dirccted into the detention pond. The detention pond would allow sediment and debris from low-flow surface water to rCl11ain in the pond and not be dischargcd into the adjacent creek. The detention pond would remove most of thc sedimentation and debris from the project. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 82 The projcct would be required to meet and comply with all applicable measures of the City of Dublin Best Management Practices to reduce soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. Some of the BMP's that arc used in residential development projects to rcduce and control soil erosion include silt curtains along the projcct perimeter, sand bags, bales of hay, etc. Mitigation Measurcs 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 in the Eastern Dublin EIR werc adopted to reduce potential soil crosion impacts to less-than-significant and shall be incorporatcd into the project. Thesc mitigations require that all grading activities shall be timcdto avoid thc rain season as much as possiblc, and intcrim control measurcs implemented to control runoff and reduce erosion potential (Eastem Dublin Gencral Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0), and require appropriate design, construction, and continued maintenance of surface and subsurfacc drainagc (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0). Therc are no additional impacts and mitigation measures beyond those analyzed 111 the Eastern Dublin ElR. c) Be located 011 a geologie ,mit or soil that is ul1stable, or that would become ul1stable as a result of the project, al1d potentially result in 011- or off-site landslide, lateral opreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? LS/M. As statcd in a) iii above, the projcct applicant has prepared a geotechnical investigation for the site. The property is subject to sevcral geologic and soil constraints. Undocumcnted fill composed of silty clay up to about 4 fcet thick was encountered in test pit TP2-18. This cxisting fill is considered highly organic and expansivc. Residual soils, dcrived by in-place weathering of the underlying parent bedrock, were cncountcred in test pits excavated on ridgelincs and spur ridgcs. The residual soils have moderate to high plasticity and are considcrcd highly expansive.33 The propcrty is also subject to landslides as discussed in a) iv above. The unstablc soil conditions and seismic induced landslides would havc a potentially significant impact to the project. Seismic induced ground subsidcnce is not considered a geologic hazard on the property. As discussed in a) iii above, liquefaction is considered low on the sitc and will not impact the project. Whilc there is the potential for landslides, measures are rccommendcd in a) iv above to reducc landslide impacts to less than significant. Thc following mcasure shall be incorporated into the projcct to reducc unstable soil conditions to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 53 Sitc Preparation and grading rccommendations numbers 1 throngh 15 on pages I] - 13 of the geotechnical investigation34 for the site shall bc incorporated into thc grading plan. 33 Design Level Geotechnical Investigation, Mission Peak Property, Tassajara Road, Alameda County, California, September 19,2004, I3crlogar Geotechnical Consultants, pages 4-5. 34 Ibid. Dublin Community Development Department 83 Mission Peak/Fredrich Propertics Anncxation/Prezoning PA04-16 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? LS/M. The project would be graded pursuant to the City of Dublin Grading Ordinance and City of Dublin Best Management Practices ensuring that all expansive soil that is encountered is properly cOlTected. Compliance with these city requirements ensures that any impacts will be lcss-than- significant. 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? Nl. Wastewater generated by the projcct would be required by the City to bc scrved by the Dublin San Ramon Services District, which is a public agency. Septic tanks would not be allowed on the sitc. The projcct would havc no impact with rcgards to the use of septic tanks because they would not be allowed. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Environmental Selling Thc Fallon Crossing site has historically becn used for callie grazing and no hazardous materials arc stored on the site presently. Pesticidcs and/or herbicides may have been stored or used on the property in the past. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? LS. The proposed Fallon Crossing residcntial project would not create any significant hazards through the transport, use or disposal of hazardous matcrials. The hazardous matcrials that are typically associated with and typically uscd by residential use include lawn care products such as pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizcrs and household cleaning matcrials. In addition, pesticides and/or herbicides may bc used to control wceds and pests in thc park, open spacc areas and retcntion basin. The concentrations of the lawn care and household materials would not create any significant hazards. Pesticides or herbicides applicd to thc park, opcn spacc, and rctention basin would be undcr thc supervision of licensed profcssional companies. The impact of hazards through the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials on the projcct would be less-than-signilicant. 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? NI. As stated in a) abovc, the rcsidentialuse of the Fallon Crossing sitc would not create a significant hazard to the public duc to a reasonably forcseeable upset and accident associatcd with thc release of a hazardous material. The only hazardous matcrials that would be used by proj ect residents include nornlaJ household cleaning materials and lawn care products. Thc types of matcrials and quantities would Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Propcl1ics Anncxation/Prczoning PA 04-16 84 not create a significant hazard to the public or environment if accidcntally released into the cnvironment. The project would have no impact with regards to the releasc 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? NI. The Quarry Lane private school is located approximately one-half mile south of Fallon Crossing on thc east side of Tassajara Road. The proposed residential use for the Fallon Crossing site would not emit any hazardous cmissions or handle hazardous materials as discussed in sections a) and b) above. The project would not emit hazardous emissions and would have no impact on the Quan)' Lane 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? NI. Neither the Fallon Crossing nor Fredrich propertics arc on the City of Dublin's list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would havc no impact with regards to Govemment Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project located within all airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not beell adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site? LS. The Livernlorc Municipal Airport is thc closest airport to cither property and is located approximately four miles to the southeast. According to the Airport Land Use Policy Plan for Alamcda County, the future (1995) CNEL 60 contour for the airport would not extend into thc Project area. Although the arca would be cxposed to occasional single- event noisc from aircraft flyovcrs, avcragc noise lcvels (CNEL) would not cxceed Titlc 24 nor the City's standards. Conscquently, aircraft noise would bc considcred an insignificant impact35 The project would have a Icss-than-significant impact in regards to the safety hazards associated with the Livermore Municipal Airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people rcsiding or working in the projcct site? NI. Therc are no private airports within two miles of the project. As stated above, the closcst airport, private or public, to the project is the LivernlOre Municipal Aiq)ort that is located approximately four miles southwest of the site. The project would have no impact on the safety of project residcnts in relation to private airports. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? NT. The Fallon Crossing project would not impair or physically interfere with thc City of Dublin emcrgency response plan. Tassajara Road is a designatcd roadway for cmcrgency response vchicles. The Fallon Crossing project 35 Eastel1l Dublin GCllcrall'lan Amendment and Specific Plan Draft EIR, August 28, 1992, page 3.10-4. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezolling PA 04-16 8S proposes to improve Tassajara Road along the project frontagc as an arterial with four through lanes and a 128-foot right of way consistent with thc Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Thc project improvemcnts to Tassajara Road would provide better access for emergency vchieles rcsponding to emergencics on the site as well as areas north and south of thc site. The project would bc requircd by thc Alamcda Connty Fire Department to provide access to the sitc for firc trucks and other emergency vehicles that have to respond to an on-site emergency. In addition to the main project access at Tassajara Road, a sccond access point is proposcd near the southeast comer of the site where the project would conncct with the adjaccnt Silvera residential project. This second point of access would provide a second acccss point for emergency vehiclcs. Thc project does not propose any improvemcnts that would impair cmergency access to sUlTolmding propertics. The projcct would have 110 impact on the City's emergency response plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS/M. The Fallon Crossing site is located in the foothills with grasslands that rcprescnt a high fire hazard because of the flammability ofthc dry summcr grasses and difficulty of access for fire trucks and emergcncy vehicles. The proposcd Fallon Crossing residential development would increase the chance of a wildland fire due to vandalism and carelessness with thc introduction of residents on the sitc. The City of Dublin has a Wildfire Managemcnt Plan". The purpose of thc plan "is to reducc the risk of opcn land wildfire to the lowest practical level consistent with reasonable protection of wildfire habitat and other open space values". The Plan also providcs for the development of a Fire Buffer Zonc between open spacc/undcvelopcd lands and developcd propertics; therefore, no additional bmsh control measures are required where this plan is utilized. The Plan providcs the following information: ownership and maintenancc for opcn space; construction requircmcnts for buildings that are located adjacent to opcn space and undcveloped land; maintcnance funding sourccs; wildfire management plan requirements; standards for vegetation establislm1ent and maintenance; appropriatc plant spceics; etc. An increased fire hazard and the associated thrcat to life and prope11y can be reduced with the incorporation of proper design mcasures in the Wildfire Management Plan. Some of thc design measures of the Plan that can be incorporated into thc project to reducc the potential wildland firc hazard include automatic fire sprinklers, Class A ratcd roof covering, firc rcsistant landscaping, appropriate maintenance of the landscaping, adcquate emcrgency access for fire trucks to open space arcas, etc. The Wildfire Managemcnt Plan applies to all new dcvclopment within the City of Dublin, including Fallon Crossing, if annexed into thc City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has a policy to protect devclopmcnt from wildland fires. The policy statcs: J6 City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan, adopted July 9, 1996, revised March 5, 2002. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Propcliics AnnexationJPrezoning PA 04-16 86 Policy 8-6. Require all new development adjacent to open space or mral residcntial areas to be desi[,'l1ed to minimize the potential for impacts related to wildland fires. At a minimum, design measures would include: provision of emergency vehiele access from subdivisions to open space areas; usc of fire rcsisti ve landscape materials as a buffer between developed and open space areas; use of non-combustible roofing materials; and long-term maintenance programs [or the urban/open space interface. A Landscape Plan for thc project will be required to be submitted at the Planned Development District/Stage 2 Developmcnt Plan. The Plan will be required to identify the type of plant materials and vcgetation outlined in the Wildfire Managcment Plan. Thc Landscapc Plan must be revicwcd by both the Fire Department and the City's landscape consultant. A final landscape plan must bc submittcd for review and approved by the Fire Dcpartmcnt prior to thc issuance of building permits. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identificd potential wildland fire impacts with development in the specific plan area. Mitigation Mcasures 3.4/11.0 and 3.4/12 of thc Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR will, whcn implemented, reduce wildfire hazards of projccts devcloped in thc specific plan area. Mitigation Measures 3.4/1 1.0 and 3.4/12 shall be incorporated into thc projcct to reduce project wildland fire impacts to less-than- significant. Mitigation Measnre 54 Integrate fire trails and fire breaks into the open space trail system. Mect fire district standards for access roads in the opcn spacc trail system while minimizing environmental impacts. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/1 1.0) Mitigation Measure 55 A Wildfire Managcmcnt Plan shall be prepared for the project to reduce the risk of impacts relatcd to wildland fire. The Wildfirc Management Plan shall be approvcd prior to the issuance of a grading pernlit. (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Environmental Selling Hydrology The project area is locatcd in the Alameda Creck Walershcd, which drains to thc San Francisco Bay via the AlToyo DcI Valle and AIToyo de la Laguna. Thc closest main surfacc body of water Dublin Community Development Deparlll1ent Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 87 to the project sitc is Tassajara Creck, which flows in a n011h-south direction immcdiately west of Tass<0ara Road. Two unnamed tributaries to Tassajara Creek currcntly flow under Tassajara Road, one immcdiately south of the Quarry Lane School site and the second in the northern portion of the projcct arca37 The project site is hilly and most of the surface water from the site sheet flows in a southwesterly direction to an unnamed tributary to Tassajara Creek that flows along the northwest projcct boundary. The tributary passes undcr Tassajafa Road and drains into Tassajara Creek west of the site. Site surface water also shect flows in a westerly direction to Tassajara Road. Since there are no curbs or gutters along Tassajara Road adjacent to the site, thc water gravity flows along the road and road shoulders to the tributary to Tassajara Creek west of Tassajara Road. As development occurs in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, more impervious surfaces would be created by pavcd streets, sidewalks, and buildings. The additional impcrvious surfaces would incrcase runoff to thc crceks and drainage channels in the area. Preliminary calculations by the projcct applicant's cngincer indicate thc project would not be subject to a I OO-ycar flood; the cxisting ullnamcd crcck along the n0l1h project boundary would contain a 100-year storm cvent. The Specific Plan has policies that address storm drain facilities in the arca. These policics are: Policy 9-7: Rcquire drainage facilities that would minimize any increased potcntial for crosion or flooding. Policy 9-8: Require channel improvemcnts that consist of natural creek bottoms and side slopcs with natural vcgctation whcrc possible to meet Policy 9-7 abovc. Surface Watcr Quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Dischargc Elimination System (NPDES), which controls thc discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sourccs. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Fedcral regulations issued in Novcmber 1990, and recently updatcd, expand cd the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of storm water discharges from municipal storn1 sewer systems, industrial processes, and constmction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre. The City of Dublin is a co-pcrmittce of the Alameda County Clcan Water Program, which is a coordinated eff0l1 by local govcmments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay.39 11 Initial Sludy/Tassajara Road/Fallon RO;Jd UHimate Precise ^lignmenL, March 2004, page 67. 38 Easlclll Dublin Specific Pbn, Updated November 1,2002, Section 9.3.1, page] 92 39 Initial StudyITassajara Road/Fallon RO<lo Ultimalc Precise Alignment, March 2004, page 67. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peaklfredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 88 A potential impact to storm water quality is non-point sources of water pollution. Non-point sourccs of water pollution are dcfincd as sources that are diffuse an/or not subject to regulation under the NPDES Program. The potential non-point sourccs in the Specific Plan areas that could causc degradation of rccciving water quality are: 1) urban runoff; 2) non-storm water discharges to storm drains; 3) subsurface drainage;' and 4) construction site runoff (erosion and sedimentation). Water quality constituents in urban runoff that can cause impairment to beneficial uscs of receiving waters include: pesticides, petroleum distillates, nutrients, sediments, synthctic organics, colifornl bacteria, trace elements, and metals. Non-storm water discharges to stoml drains can occur from industrial and commercial sites with improper plumbing and housckeeping practices and also from public clumping of household chemicals and waste automotive oils and fluids. Construction site runoff primarily contributes scdiments and turbidity to receiving watcrs.4<) The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area is underlain by an cxtcnsive underground aquifer. The aquifcr rangcs in depth betwecn 15 and 500 feet but is no longer used as thc primary sourcc of domcstic water in the arca. Zonc 7 of the Alamcda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is presently finalizing plans to storc treated wastewater within the aquifer during winter months, which would be pumped out and uscd for landscape irrigation during dry, summer months. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan has a policy to protect water quality in thc area. Thc policy statcs: Policy 9-9: Plan facilitics and select management practices in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area that protcct and enhance water quality. Proicct Impacts a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS/M. Thc runoff generated by thc project during construction and post-construction could impact water quality. Sediment and construction dcbris along with urban pollutants including oil, grease, fcrtilizers, pet waste, and other chcmicals from surface streets, lawns, and open space could bc dischargcd into the unnamed tributary along the northwest project boundary and eventually into Tassajara Creek. This is a potcntially significant impact. The project proposes a retention basin to collect all surface water nmoff from the devcloped area of the sitc. Thc rctention basin is proposed within the creck setback area betwccn the creek and the n0l1hcrly row of homes. A gravity outflow line would bc constructed from the rctcntion basin to the creek. A water quality pond is proposed bctween the retention basin and the creek to provide pre-treatment of the stornl watcr prior to bcing discharged into the creek. 40 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Updated November 1,2002, Section 9.3.2, rage 192 Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 89 The Fallon Crossing project would be required to meet the water quality requirements of the City of Dublin's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. In addition, the project preliminary drainage plan providcs measures to accommodate overland drainagc release betwecn lots in the event of blocked storm drain facilities. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR has mitigation measures to reduce water quality impacts. Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 through 3.5/50.0 and 3.5/53.0 through 3.5/55.0 shall bc incorporated into the project to rcduce water quality impacts to less-than- significant. These mitigationmcasures are listed below. Mitigation Measurc 56 Drainage faci1itics shall be providcd that would minimize any incrcased potential for crosion or flooding (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Mcasure 3.5/44.0). Mitigation Mcasurc 57 Any channel improvements to the unnamed tributary along the northwcst project boundary shall consist of a natural creek bottom and side slopes with natural vegctation where possible (Eastern Dublin Gencral Plan Amcndmcnt/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/45.0). Mitigation Measure 58 A Master Drainage Plan shall be preparcd and submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to thc issuancc of a grading pCl111it (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendmcnt/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0). In addition, thc projcct drainage plan shall provide adequate overland drainage release through the projcct, including lots 91-92 and 17-19. Mitigation Measure 59 Thc project shall be required to providc facilities to alleviatc potential downstream flooding due to the project (Eastern Dublin Gencral Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/47.0). Mitigation Measure 60 Any backbone drainage facilities required by thc project shall be consistent with the St0l111 Drain Master Plan (Eastel11 Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/48.0). Mitigation Measure 61 All storm drain facilities and management practices shall protcct and enhance water quality (Eastern Dublin Gcncral Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0). Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prczoning PA 04-16 90 Mitigation Measure 62 A specific water quality investigation shall be submitted to demonstrate existing water quality and impacts that urban nInoff of the project would have on that water quality. The water quality investigation shall address the quantity of runoff and the effects from discharged pollutants from surface runoff into the on-site retcntion basin and unnamed tributary (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0). Mitigation Measure 63 The project shall meet all applicable requiremcnts of the City of Dublin "Best Management Practices" to mitigate stornl watcr pollution (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Spccific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/53.0). Mitigation Measure 64 The projcct shall mcct the watcr quality requirements of the City of Dublin NPDES pernlit (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendmcnt/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.5/54.0). Mitigation Measure 65 The project shall meet thc water quality rcquirements of thc Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Watcr Program (Eastem Dublin Gcneral Plan Amcndment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/54.0). b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? NI. The project proposes to retain approximately 47.8 acres (46.8 acres of open space and an approximately I acre park) of thc sitc as open space. This open spacc would continue to allow groundwater recharge. Approximately 19.5 acres are proposed for development, which includes houses, streets, sidcwalks, and other impervious surfaces. Thcse impervious surfaccs would reducc percolation of water into thc local groundwater. The impervious surface area of the projcct would be less than the impervious surface if the site were dcvelopcd to thc maximum numbcr ofhouscs allowed hy the specific plan. Since the project proposes 69 fewer homcs than allowed, thc project would generate less surface water runoff from the site than evaluated in the Specific Plan EIR. Thc project cleveloper would be rcquired by DSRSD to pay drainage and flood control fces. Thc fees would be used to construct needed master plan storm drain improvements that would handle project surface water. The drainage fee is collected at final map recordation and fees for individual residential lots are collected at the issuance of building pcmlits. Thc paymcnt of the required flood control and drainage fees would mitigate Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 91 groundwater recharge impacts of the project. Thc project would have no impact to groundwatcr recharge. c) Would the project substantIaIly alter the exIstIng draInage pattern of the sIte or area, IncludIng through the alteratIon of the course of a stream or rIver, In a manner that would result In substantIal erosIon or sIltatIon on- or o.ffsIte? NT. The project does not propose to make any substantial modifications to the unnamed drainage channel along the northwcst project boundary. A stonn water dischargc line from the on-site retention basin to the unnamed drainagc channel would be required to be constructed, which would rcquire minimal grading modifications to the southcl11 bank of the channel, but would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. The channel at thc northwest corner of the site will require rcalignl11ent to allow for the future widcning ofTassajara Road as shown in the Tassajara Road Precise Alignment that was adopted by thc City in July 2004. The projcct applicant has not submitted a plan showing thc proposed alignmcnt of Tassajara Road in relation to the outfall and retcntion basin. The outfall and rctention basin proposcd by thc project could have a significant impact on the road alignment. The following measure shall bc incorporated into thc project to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Mcasnre 66 The project developer shall submit a preliminary creek alignment plan to the rcsource agcncies for the realignment of Tassajara Creek prior to approval of the projcct by thc City. Grading to provide strcets, building pads, park, etc. would alter existing drainage patterns. Although the on-site drainage patterns would be altercd, the project surface water would continuc to be discharged into the unnamed tributary along thc northwcst project boundary and eventually to Tassajara Creek as under the CUlTcnt conditions. Howcver, all project gcnerated surface watcr would be collected by an on-site stann drain collection systcm, including curbs and gutters, and directcd into a proposed retcntion basin. The surface water would cnter the rctention basin and any water that docs not cvaporate or pcrcolate into the soil would bc discharged into unnamcd tributary along the westerly projcct boundary at the same rate as existing conditions. Thc retention basin is dcsigned to rctain thc increased quantity of surface watcr from the site due to its development with impervious surfaces and allow discharge into Tassajara Crcek at the same rate as prcsently. The effccts of substantial erosion or siltation would not be any greater than current conditions due to surface water bcing dirccted to thc rctcntion basin prior to discharge into the unnamed tributary. Thc retention basin will rcduce the velocity of surface water from the site, rcducing soil erosion and siltation. Thc storm watcr dischargc outlet from the retention basin to the creek is designcd to reduce and minimize crosion of the creek bank at the point of discharge. The discharge outlet and associated roek riprap bank protection are proposed to be installed on the tributary strcam along thc northwest project boundary. Thc outfall will consist of a 9 x 20 Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnncxationfPrczoning PA 04-16 92 foot stmcturc installed on the side of the creek bank, above the ordinary high water line. At the high water line, sheet piling is proposed to be installed to a depth of 22 feet to prevent erosion. Below the ordinary high water line, stream bank protection consisting of riprap and coir fabric will be installed over an area approximately 5 x IS feet to prevent further erosion. The control of surface water from the project at the existing rate would minimize downstream erosion that could occur by the project. The project would change existing drainage patterns on the site, but the incorporates the Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures related to erosion and siltation downstream impacts. There are no impacts or mitigation measures bcyond the Eastem Dublin EIR analysis. d) Wauld the praject substantially alter the existing drainage pattern af the site ar area, including through the alteratian af the caurse af a stream ar river, ar substantially increase the rate ar am aunt af surface runaff in a manner that wauld result in flaoding an- ar off-site? NI. The project grading would not alter thc course of a stream or river. However, the project would require grading that would change and alter existing drainage pattems on the site and would increase the amount and rate of surface water runoff that could result in flooding on and off-site. The project proposes to construct an on-site retention basin to retain surface water flow to minimize downstream flooding. The project would not increase the rate or amount of surface water generated from the site greater than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ErR. While the project would change the rate and amount of surface water runoff of the site, there is no impact with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures of the Eastem Dublin ErR related to storm drains: Mitigation Measure 67 The project developer shall be required to obtain proper approvals for storm drainage (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Action Program Number 9W) Mitigation Measure 68 The siting of the storm drainage infrastructure shall be consistent with the Resource Management Policies of the Specific Plan (East em Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Action Program No. 9X). e) Would the project create ar cantribute runaffwater that wauld exceed the capacity af existing ar planned starm water drainage systems ar provide substantial additianal saurces af palluted runaff! NI. The project proposes to construct an on-site retention basin to collect all surface water runofffrom the developed area of the site. The retention basin would retain all surface water from the developed areas of the site and discharge surface water into the unnamed tributary along the westerly project boundary at the same rate as presently exist. The project will construct impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, houses, etc. and increase the amount of surface water generated from the site currently. However, the project would not generate any greater quantity of storm water than presently to the stream adjacent to the site because all surface water flows from the developed area will be directed to an on-site retention basin that will meter the flow of surface water from the site into the adjacent stream equal to current flows. Therefore, the Dublin Community Development Department 93 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 stonn water generated from the project can be adequately handled by the downstream facilities, ineluding Tassajara Creck and the stonn drain improvcmcnts proposed for Zone 7 by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Thc surface watcr 1l.1I10ffthat is estimated to be generated by thc project would not be any greater than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The projcct would contribute runoff to the area drainage system, but incorporates the mitigation measures related to storm drains in the Eastem Dublin ElR. Thus, the project will have no impact to existing and future flood control facilities. (See discussion in a) and c) abovc). f) Wauld the praject atherwise substantially degrade water quality? Nl. The projcct would not degrade water quality. As diseusscd in a) abovc, mitigation measures from the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan ErR are recommcnded for incorporation into the project to reduce water quality impacts of the project to no impact. g) Wauld the praject place hausing within a I DO-year flaad hazard area as mapped an a federal Flaad Hazard Baundary ar Flaad Insurance Rate Map ar ather flaad hazard delineatianmap? Nl. The project is located outside of a 100-ycar flood plain and would not construct houses in a flood hazard area. The project would have no impact by placing housing in a ilood hazard area. h) Wauld the project place within a I DO-year flaad hazard area structures, which would impede ar redirect flaad flaws? NI. The project does not propose to construct any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and impede or redirect flood flows of the unnamed tributalY adjacent to the site. The project would have no impact on Ilooding by placing structures within a I OO-year flood hazard area. (See the discussion in g) above) i) Wauld the project expose peaple ar structures to. a significant risk af lass, injury ar death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? NI. Therc are no dams or levecs upstream of the project site that would impact the project if they failed. The failure of a dam or levee would have no impact on the project. j) Wauld the praject expase peaple ar structures to. a significant risk af lass, injwy ar death invalving illundatian by seiche, tsunami, ar mudflaw? NI. There arc no bodies of water located nearby that could impact the project due to either a seiche or tsunami. A seiche or tsunami would have no impact to the project. The hillside nOlih of lots 1-20 and east of lots 14-18 would be graded to allow lots to be developed on the hillsides and eliminate the need for large retaining walls. The geotechnical rcpOli includcs preliminary remedial recommendations for the three landslides 011 the site that could impact the developed areas, including mudslides. The remaining landslides on thc site that are located outside of the devclopment area can be Dublin ConmlUllity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prczoning PA 04-16 94 left in-place and no remedial gcotcchnicalmcasurcs arc required.'] Thc incorporation of Mitigation Measures 50-52 would reduce potential mudflow impacts to no impact. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Environmental Setting The Fallon Crossing site is vacant and there are no strueturcs on the site. The propcrty is currently used for cattle grazing. Thc Fredrich propeliy is vacant except for a rural rcsidencc. Regulatory Framework Eastern Dublin Specific Plan General Plan Thc land use designations for the Fallon Crossing propcrty inelude Rural Residential! Agriculture (0.01 du/ac) and Single Family (0.9-6.0 du/ae.). The land use designations allow the potential for 172 residential units on the property. The project proposes 103 residential units. The land uses for the Frcdrich property includes General Commercial and Mcdium Density Residential (14.1 no 25.0 du/ae.). Howcvcr, no development is proposed for the Fredrich property at this time. A map showing the designatcd land uses for the properties is shown previously in Figure 5. Both parcels (Fallon Crossing and Fredrich) arc located in Alameda County. Both parcels are ineluded in the City of Dublin Sphere of Influence with the intent that thc propcrties would be aJUlexed into the City as allowed by the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan sometime in the future. When anncxed into the City of Dublin, the Gcneral Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would determine the typc and dcnsity of land use that could bc dcveloped on the parcels. Proiect Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Fallon Crossing site is prescntly used for cattle grazing and the development of thc property would not divide an established community. The project would have no impact on any cxisting communities by the project. b) Canflict with any applicable land use plan, palicy, ar regulatian af an agency with jurisdiction aver the praject (including, but nat limited to. the general plan, specific plan, lacal caastal pragram, ar zaning ardinance) adapted far the purpase af avaiding ar mitigating an enviranmental effect? NI. The General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan desif,'Tlate the Fallon Crossing site for residential development and allow the 41 Design Level Geotechnical Investigation Mission Peak Property, Berlogar Geoteclmical Consultants, September 19,2003, page 10. Dublin Community Development Departnlent 95 Mission PeakJFredrich Properties Anllcxation/Prczoning PA 04-16 potential for 172 units. The project proposes 103 units, which is 69 units less than allowed by the General Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The project would have no impact to the land use policy of the Specific Plan. Consistency with other applicable general plan/specific plan policies and standards as adopted is addressed with this analysis in related technical chapters. c) Canflict with any applicable habitat canservatian plan ar natural cammunity canservatian plan? NI. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan that applies to the project site or the vicinity. The project would have 110 impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Environmental Setting The Fallon Crossing site is comprised of grassland and is used for cattle grazing. There arc no mining activities on the site at the present time and there is no evidence or history that mining OCClllTed in the past. Proj ect hnpacts a) Result in the lass af availability af a knawn mineral resaurce that wauld be af value to the region and the residents of the state? NI. There are no known mineral resources on the Fallon Crossing property that would be impacted with the development of the project. The project would have 110 impact on mineral resources. b) Result in the lass af availability of a lacally impartant mineral resaurce recavery site delineated an a lacal general plan, specific plan ar ather land use plan? NI. The Conservation Element of the Dublin General Plan does not reference any mineral resources on the site. The project would have no impact on the loss of a locally impOliant mineral resource. XI. NOISE Environmental Setting The City of Dublin uses the CNEL descriptor to assess compatibility of various land uses with noise enviromnents. A CNEL of 60 dB or less is considered "normally acceptable" for residential development. Proposed housing exposed to a CNEL of more than 60 dB will be exposed to a significant impact.42 42 E<lstcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, Draft fiR, August 28, 1992, page 3.10-2. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prczoning PA 04-16 96 Noise levels were evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The noise survey indicated that the major noise source in eastern Dublin is due to traffic along Interstate 580 (1-580). The 60-dB contour for noise levcls, the maximum level considercd normally acceptable for residential uses and othcr uses that are noise scnsitive, cxtends as much as 2,000 feet north of the freeway. For this reason, the Plan has generally located residential uses away from the freeway.43 Proposcd residcntial housing along Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, Hacienda Drive and Doolan Road will be exposed to futurc noisc levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. Project Impacts a) Exposure afpersans to. 0.1' generatian afnaise levels in excess afstandards established in the lacal general plan 0.1' noise ardinance, or applicable standards af ather agencies? LS/M. The project is located in a rural area adjacent to and east of Tassajara Road. Existing noise on the site is due to traffic along Tassajara Road and construction activity on the Silvera development adjaccnt to and south of the project. As noted above, the project would bc exposed to noise from Tassajara Road b'Teatcr than 60 dB CNEL, which could expose residcnts to traffic noise exceeding city standards. Tassajara Road is desib'11atcd to bc an Arterial and ultimately proposed for four through lanes. Thc projcct will provide thc frontage improvemcnts and the ultimate improvements to this road will be completed with development fees through thc Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Program. The incrcased traffic that is cstimatcd to travel on the road in the future could gencrate noise and impact project residents, especially those residents closcst to Tassajara Road. The project applicant has not prepared a noise analysis to detemline if thc project would be impacted by traffic noise 011 Tassajara Road. A noise study for the project would be requircd before approval of the project improvemcnt plans and issuance of building pemlits. Thc noisc study would address and discuss the traffic noise impacts on Tassajara Road on the houses, especially those closcst to Tassajara Road. Noise levels must comply with the Dublin Noise Element standards of 45 dBA or less for interior noise and 60 dBA or less for exterior. All sound barriers and noise mitigation measures recommended in the noise study to reduce noise levels to comply with City standards will be incorporated into the project. The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce noise impacts to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measure 69 A noise study shall be prepared for the devclopment prior to tbe approval of thc Planncd Development State 2 Development Plan to show compliance with the interior and exterior noise standards. The noise study shall evaluate noise impacts of traffic on Tassajara Road on the project. The interior noise levels shall be brought to 45 dBAba or less and exterior noise levels to 60 dBA or lower. Noise impacts generated by 43 Eastclll Dublin Specific Pbn, Updated November 1,2002, Section 6.4.2 Noise, page 111. Dublin Community Development DCp8rtment Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnncxationlPrezoning PA 04-16 97 mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, pool pumps, etc. shall be minimized. All sound barriers and mitigation measures recommended in the noise study shall be incorporated into the improvement plans for development' of each site. Additionally, an acoustical consultant shall SIgn the construction plans. b) Expasure af persans to. ar generalian af excessive graundbarne vibratian ar graundbarne naise levels? LS. There would be ground borne vibration during grading and construction of the project associated with soil compaction during grading and construction of underground utilities. There are no existing residences in elose proximity of the site that could be impacted by construction vibration, including the single- family rcsidenee on the Fredrich propeliy, which is approximately 500 feet west of the Fallon Crossing site. The ground bome vibrations arc a short-tenn impact and would cease upon completion of construction. Long-term residential use on the site would not expose people to ground bOllle vibration impacts because vibrations would not be generated during the life of the project. Thc project would have a less-than-significant impact to generating cxeessive ground bOllle vibrations. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient naise levels in the praject vicinity abave levels existing with aut the project? LS. The noise due to the devclopment of the site was evaluated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR. While the project would increase the ambicnt noise levels in the project vicinity the noise levels were not cstimated to be substantial. The ambient noise Icvels in the area due to the project would he Icss-than- significant. d) A substantial temparary ar periadic increase in ambient naise levels in the project vicinity abave levels existing with aut the praject? LS. Noise would be generated during construction of the projcet. The noise that can be expected to be gcnerated during project construction includes truck activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving, the operation of constnIetion equipment and tools, etc. Construction noise is considered a potentially significant impact. The Eastelll Dublin EIR mitigation measures require a Construction Noise Management Program to identify how temporary construction noises would be reduced. With preparation and implementation of this program, temporary constnIetion noisc impacts would be less-than-significant. e) Far a project lacated within an airport land use plan ar, where such a plan has nat been adapted, within two. miles af a public airpart or public use airport, wauld the project expase people residing ar warking in the praject site to excessive noise levels? NI. The project site is not located within an airpOli land usc plan or within two miles of a public Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Propcliies Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 98 airport or public use airport as stated in section VII e) and f) above. The project would have 110 impact with regards to cxposing people to excessive airpOli noise. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the projcct site to execssive noise levels? NI. See e) above. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Environmental Setting The city population as of January I, 2005 was estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 39,9314". Significant population growth is anticipated for the community based on planned residential growth in east Dublin, including the approved the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. Projcct Impacts a) Induce substantial papulatian growth in an area, either directly (far example, by propasing new hames and businesses) ar indirectly (far example, through extensian of roads or ather infrastructure)? NI. Annexation and development of the site is provided for in the Gcneral Plan and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. Thc Spccifie Plan designates a range of 36 to 172 units for the site. The project proposes 103 units, which is the mid range of the units allowed for the site. Because the project is consistent with the type and density of residential units for the site it would not induce a substantial population growth in the area. The projcct would have no impact on inducing the population growth of the area. b) Displace substantial numbers af existing hausing, necessitating the canstruction af replacement hausing elsewhere? NI. The project site is vacant and used for cattle grazing. There arc no residences on the Fallon Crossing site that would be displaced by the project. The existing rural residence on the Fredrich site is not proposed for removal. Therefore the project would have 110 impact by displacing existing housing on the sitc. c) Displace substantial numbers of peaple, necessitating the canstructian af replacement hausing elsewhere? NT. See discussion in b) above. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Environmental Setting The following service providers serve the site: 44 Califoll1in Department or Finance, E-l City/County Population Estimates, 2005 Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexatioll/Prczoning PA 04-16 99 Fire Protection and Prevention. Fire protection is provided by the Alameda County Fire Department, under contract to the City of Dublin, which provides structural fire suppression, rescue, hazardous materials control and public education services. Police Protection. Police protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff, under contract to the City of Dublin. The Department, which maintains a swom staff of 47 officers, performs a range of public safety services ineluding patrol, investigation, traffic safety and public education. Schools. Educational facilities are provided by the Dublin Unified School District that operates kindergarten through high school services within the community. Schools that would serve Fallon Crossing include Dublin High School (grades 9-12) and Wells Middle School (graded 6-8). Grades K-5 could be served by one of three elementary schools within the District. Maintenance. The City of Dublin provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks, street trees and other public facilities. Dublin's Civic Centcr is loeatcd at 100 Civic Plaza. Other gove1l1l11cntal scrvices. Other govcmmental services are provided by the City of Dublin including community development and building serviccs and related goveml11ental services. Library service is providcd by the Alameda County Library with supplemental funding by thc City of Dublin. Thc City of Dublin has adopted a Public Facilities Fee for all new residential development for the purpose of financing new municipal public facilities needed by such development. The public facilities that would be funded by thc fec paid by development of the Fallon Crossing project include completion of the Civic Center Complex, construction of a new library, expansion of the existing senior center, acquisition and development of community and neighborhood parks and similar municipal buildings and facilities. The developer of the Fallon Crossing project would be required to pay the Public Facilities Fee in accordance with State law. The developer of the Fallon Crossing project would also be required to pay school impact fees to the Dublin Unified School District. Dublin Unified School District would use the developer fees to provide additional school facilities to serve the students generated by the project. Project Impacts a) Wauld the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts assaciated with the pravisiall af Ilew ar physically altered gavernmental facilities, need far Ilew ar physically altered gavernmelltal facilities, the canstructian of which cauld cause significant environmental impacts, ill arder to. maintain acceptable service ratias, respanse times ar ather perfarmallce abjectives far any af the public services: Dublin Conmmnity Development Department Mission PcaklFredrich Properties AlUlexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 100 Fire Protection? LS/M. The Alameda County Fire Department City of Dublin Division would provide fire protection to the project. The project is located within 5 miles of the fire station that would serve the project. The fire station that would serve the project is located at 4800 Fallon Road. A typical response time to the site is less than five minutes, but may be exceeded at various times. As part of the site development review process, specific fire protection requirements would be imposed on the project by the Fire Dcpartment to ensure the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Califomia Fire Code. The project proposes more than 75 units, which requires two points of public access. The project proposes two points of public access: a main public access point at Tassajara Road and a second public access at the southeast comer of the site via a connection with the adjacent Silvera residential development. The project is located more than one and a half miles and five minute response from the nearest fire station; therefore, the residences would be rcquired to have automatic sprinklcrs. The homes adjacent to the proposed open space would be required to comply with the Wildfire Management Plan to protect those residences from wildland fire, which could impact the project. The following measures are recommended to reduce wild land fire impacts to Iess-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 70 The project shall comply with the City of Dublin Wildfire Management Plan and installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system in each residence. Mitigation Measure 71 The project developer shall pay the Fire Protection Fee prior to issuance of a building permit to offset the cost of providing fire services for the development. Palice Pratectian? NJ. Police protection for the project would be provided by the City of Dublin Police Services Department. The Police Department would review the project site plan by the concepts of Clime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) as a guideline. The design techniques include: natural surveillance; territoriality; access control; and premise liability. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City of Dublin Security Ordinance. The projeet would have no impact with the incorporation of all applicable security measures of the Security Ordinance and recommendations by the Department for design techniques. Schaals? LS/M. The project would generate students to elementary, middle, and high school in the Dublin Unified School District. The students generated by the project could impact the capacity of the schools in the Dublin Unified School DistJict that serve the project. The project developer would be required to pay statutory school impact fees that arc used by the District to provide school facilities as needed to serve students. The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan EIR has mitigation measures that when implemented would reduce potential student capacity impacts to schools by the project. Mitigation Measures Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxatioll/Prezoning PA 04-16 101 3.4/14.0,3.4/15.0,3.4/17.0 and 3.4/18.0 in the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan EIR are restated below for incorporation into the proposed Fallon Crossing project to reduce student capacity impacts to the Dublin Unified School District to less-than-significant. Mitigation Measnre 72 Adequate capacity shall be provided for junior high school age students (Eastcl11 Dublin General Plan Amendment/Speci fic Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/14.0). Mitigation Measure 73 Adequate elassroom space shall be provided prior to the development of new homes (East em Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.4/15.0). Mitigation Measure 74 Adequate school facilities shall be available prior to development in the project areas to the extent permitted by law (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/17.0). Mitigation Measure 75 The development of new school facilities shall be provided for through the dedication of school sites and lor payment of development fees by developers, or by any other mean permitted by law (Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/18.0). Parks? LS. The project developer would be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee. The money would be used to acquire parkland and constmct parks throughout the city. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR has mitigation measures that are applicable to the project when implemented would ensure the acquisition of parkland and the improvement of new parks. Mitigation Measures 3.4/23.0, 3.4/25.0, 3.4/27.0, and 3.4/28.0 3.4/29 shall be incorporated into the project to reduce student capacity impacts to the Dublin Unified School District to Icss-than-signifIcant. Other Public Facilities? NI. The project would have no impact to public facilities, JI1 addition to those facilities discussed above. XIV. RECREATION Enviromnental Setting There arc no parks on the project site. The closest park to the site is Ted Fairfield Park, which is a five-acre neighborhood park. Emerald Glen Park, a 30-aere community park, is located at the southwest comer of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive and provides a variety of active and passive recreational facilities. Trails and pathways arc also provided along Tassajara Road and Tassajara Creek. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationJPrezoning PA 04-16 102 The project proposes a 1.0-acre park to serve the new subdivision as shown previously in Figure 15. The City Council has shown an interest in each new subdivision in the portion of eastern Dublin including a plan for at least a 1.0 or 2-acre park to serve the residents. The proposed park does not meet this requirement Proieet Impacts a) Wauld the project increase the use af existing neighbarhaad and regianal parks ar ather recreatianal facilities such that substantial physical deteriaration af the facility would accur ar be accelerated? NI. The project residents would increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities in Dublin, ineluding Emerald Glen Park. Thc project developcr would be rcquired to pay a Public Facilities Fee to the City of Dublin, which would be used to acquire parkland or construct new parks. Although the developer is proposing a onc-acre neighborhood park, credit for the onc-acre neighborhood park would not be allowcd. Thus, the project developer would be required to pay the full Public Facilities Fcc. Thc project would have no impact on parks with payment of the required Public Facilities Fee. b) Daes the project include recreatianal facilities ar require the canstructian ar expansian af recreatianal fizcilities that might have an adverse physical effect an the environment? LS/M. A 1.0-aere linear park is proposed along the west side of the project, between the creek set-back area and the residences. The park ineludes a pedestrian trail, sitting areas, a small play arca, and native landscaping. The park would serve some of the passive park needs of the project residents. In addition, the project developer would be required to pay a Public Facilities Fee to the City of Dublin. The City uses the fee to acquire and construct new parks and expand existing parks to serve residents. The 1.0-aere park would be maintained by a homeowners association or some other funding source for long-teml maintenance. The Eastem Dublin EIR has mitigation measures to ensure the park is properly maintained throughout the life of the project and the project provides adequate parkland. Action Program Number 81 and Mitigation Measures 3.4/29.0 and 3.4/31.0 of the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR are restated and shall be incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure 76 The City shall ensure that an assessment district, homeowncrs association, or some other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-teml maintenance of the urban/open space interface prior to the issuance a grading pennit for the park (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Action Program No. 81). Dublin COImnunity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 103 Mitigation Measnre 77 The City shall ensure that caeh new developmcnt reserves the open space and parkland designated in the Plan (Eastel11 Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0). Mitigation Measure 78 The City shall calculate and assess in lieu park fees based on Dublin's parkland and dedication ordinance (Eastel11 Dublin Gencral Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0). xv. TRANSPORT A nON/TRAFFIC Environmental Setting A traffic study was prepared for the project by TJKM, Transportation Consultants" and is included as Appendix C. This report presents the results of TJKM's traffic impact study of the Fallon Crossings development to be located in Eastern Dublin. The project is located to the east of Tassajara Road and north of the Silvera Ranch property at a site that is currently vacant. The proposed residential development would consist of a total of] 03 single-family homes. The purpose of this traffic study is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts, identify shOJi-term and long-tenn roadway and circulation needs, detel111ine potential mitigation measures, and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going plalming process. The study primarily focused on cvaluating conditions at ninc existing and thrcc future study intersections in the vicinity that may potentially be impacted by the proposed project. The intersection operating conditions were evaluated under four scenarios: I. Existing 2. Future Baseline (Existing plus Approved plus PendingO 3. Future Baseline plus Project 4. Year 2025 Build out Conditions (ineluding Project) The proposed projcct is expected to generate 77 a.m. peak hour trips and] 04 p.m. peak hour trips. Since the projcct is consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan, it is not expected to generate more a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips over the City's General Plan. As a result, no additional traffic impact analysis of the project is required by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) to satisfy the Land Use Analysis Program for the Alameda Congestion Managemcnt Program (CMP). 45 A Traffic Study for the Proposed Pallon Crossing Development, September 28,2005, TJKM Transportation Consultants Dublin Community Development Department 104 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Almexation/Prczoning PA 04-16 Currently, all existing study intersections operate at aeeeptable levels of service. They are all expected to continue to operate acceptably under the Future Baseline and the Future Baseline plus Project conditions. Under Build out conditions, 10 of the 12 study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the peak hours. The intersections of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Santa Rita Road/I-5S0 Eastbound Ramps are expected to operate unacceptahly during the p.m. peak hour. The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan EIR evaluated the traffic impacts with the development of up to 172 units with a mid-point of 104 units. The project is at the mid-point of the number of units proposed for the site by the Specific Plan. The project would generate less traffic than projected by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and addressed by the Eastern Dublin EIR. General Plan Transportation Poliev Framework The General Plan measures and evaluates traffic congestion conditions of the roadway network by using intersection level of service ("LOS") analysis. The LOS analysis describes the operational efficiency of an intersection by comparing the volume of critical traffic movements to intersection capacity and detennining average delays. LOS can range from "A," reprcsenting free-flowing conditions, to "F," representing very severe congestion and intersection breakdown. The General Plan adopts LOS D or better as the aceeptablc LOS for all routes of regional significance (thesc routes include: Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Rd., Tassajara Rd., and San Ramon Rd.). Development and road improvements should be phased so that the LOS docs not deteriorate below LOS D (v/e .91 or greater) (General Plan Guiding Policies 5.l.1B and C). Significance Criteria Based upon General Plan policies, an intersection impact is considered significant if it causcs the overall intcrsection LOS, or a movement LOS in the intcrsection, to fall below LOS D. Proieet Impacts Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relatian to. the existing traffic laad and capacity afthe street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number af vehicle trips, the valume to. capacity ratio. an raads, ar cangestian at interscctians). LS/M. The project would inereasc vehiele trips and traffic on the local roadway network. The project would generate less traffic than estimated for the site by the Eastern Dublin ElR because the project proposes 69 fewer units than evaluated for the site by the Eastcm Dublin EIR. The traffic study states the project itself would not impact roadways or intersections in the project area beyond their capacities. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Alillcxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 105 No Congestion Management Agency (CMA) analysis is needed for the Fallon Crossing project because the project is consistent with the General Plan. The project meets the residential density range and maximum density allowed under the City's General Plan and the East Dublin Specific Plan for the property location. The project will be required by the City to widen Tassajara Road to its ultimate right-of- way width as identified in the Eastem Dublin EIR, including the dedication of right-of- way and construction. Prior to the approval of any development in Eastern Dublin, in January 1995 the City adopted (and has since updated) the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impaet Fee which consisted of tlu'ee "categories"" Category I was, in general, to pay for required transportation improvements in the SP/GP A project areas; Category 2 was, in general, to pay for required improvements in other areas of Dublin; and Category 3 was to pay for regional improvements to which development in Eastem Dublin should contribute. The improvements for which the fee is collected included those improvements assumed in the Eastcm Dublin EIR, thosc improvements necessary for Eastem Dublin to develop; and those improvements identified in the Eastcm Dublin EIR as mitigation measures. In June 1998, the City adopted the Tri- Valley Transportation Development Fee, in conjunction with the cities of Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon and Danville and the Counties of Alameda. Additionally, the developer would be required to pay the project's Alameda and Contra Costa to fund regional improvements. This fee replaced the Category 3 fee. In addition, the City has adopted a Freeway Interchange Fee to reimburse Pleasanton for funding construction of certain interchanges on 1-580 that also benefit Eastem Dublin. All developmcnt projects in Eastem Dublin are required to pay these fees at building pemlit or construct the improvements included in the fce programs. Therefore, the project developer will be required by the City to pay their fair-share toward improvements at the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. The traffic rep0l1 identified a number of on- and off-site traffic improvements to mitigate traffic impacts. The improvements recommended in the traffic report have been incorporated into the project as recommended. The recommended traffic improvements that are incorporated in to the project include: Off-Site Improvements o Modify the traffic signal installation at the Tassajara Road/Fallon Road intersection, as necessary, to accommodate the fourth leg to the intersection providing proj ect access. The modified traffic signal should be designed as an 8-phase signal. o Provide a ISO-foot southbound left-turn pocket with a 90-foot taper on Tassajara Road at the project access. o Provide a ISO-foot westbound right tum pocket with a 90-foot taper on Fallon Road at the project access. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properlies Annexation/Prezonillg PA 04-16 106 o Widen the Tassajara Road segment between the northern access for Dublin Ranch West and Fallon Road from two lanes to four lanes, as the projected ADT of 14,670 vehicles per day (vpd) for this segment under Baseline plus Project conditions approaches the 15,000 vpd maximum threshold standard for two-lane roadways. On-Site Improvements o Install STOP control on the "West Street" approach to Project Access Street. o Install STOP control on the "Project Access Street" approach to "East- West Street". o Implement appropriate traffic calming device(s) on West, Project Access, "East", and/or East-West Street(s), in consultation with City staff. b) Exceed, either individually ar cumulatively, a level afservice standard established by the caunty cangestian management agency far designated raads ar highways? LS/M. I) The Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection would operate at LOS E (v/c=0.93) during the p.m. peak hour under Build out Conditions (ineluding the project). This LOS represents a significant cumulative impact. Under the Build out scenario, the intersection of Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard and Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps/Pimlico Drive are expected to operate unacceptably at LOS E during the p.m. peak hour. Additional improvements to improve the Dougheliy Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection LOS to an acceptable level (LOS D) would require adding a fourth northbound left turn lane on Dougherty Road. Allowing four lanes of traffic to perform a left turn movement simultaneously would raise major concerns regarding the safety of such an operation. Moreover, additional improvements to reduce traffic impacts at this intersection are not feasible given the physical constraints at the intersection. The City should periodically monitor the peak hour volumes at Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, as well as other intersections near 1-580 interchanges and continue to obtain updated volume forecasts of future years. In addition, current and future phases of the 1- 580 Smart Corridor Project (i.e., state-of-the-mi systems deployment for future monitoring, incident management, and regional traffic coordination among Alameda County, Caltrans and the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton) would likely relieve some congestion at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection through Intelligent Transportation System (rrS) measures to discourage traffic from diverting off the freeway due to congestion or incidents. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 107 Therefore, the impact at the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection under Build out conditions remains a significant cumulative impact. Thc following measure shall be incorporated into the project. Mitigation Measure 79 The project developer shall advance to thc City applieablc monies for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of the improvements assumed in this study for the intersection of improvements assumed in the September 28, 2005 TKJM Traffic Study for the Proposed Fallon Crossings Development for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard/Doughcrty Road. The amount of money advanced to the City shall be based on the developer's fair share of the deficit (sprcad over those projects which are required to make up the deficit) between funds available to the City from Categary 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee funds and the estimated cost of acquiring the right- of-way and constmcting the improvements. The City shall provide credit for CategOlY 2 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fcc to the developer for any advance of monies made for the improvemcnts planned for the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. 2) Thc Santa Rita/I-580 EB ramps intersection would operatc at LOS E (v/c~0.95) during the p.m. peak hour under Build out Conditions (including the project). This LOS represents a significant cumulative impact. Widening thc eastbound off-ramp approach to ineludc three left turn lanes, one through lane, and onc free right tum lane at the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound off-ramps/Pimlieo Drive is expect cd to improve the intersection level of service to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. Modifications to the striping on the northbound lanes of the Tassajara Road/I-580 overpass will be requircd to accept traffic from the third left tUI11 lane and maintain three northbound through lanes at thc Tassajara Road/I-580 westbound ramps intersection. The following mcasure shall be incorporatcd into the project to reduce the impact to less- than-significant. Mitigation Measure 80 The project developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of the cost to improve the intersection of Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound off-ramps/Pimlieo Drive to ineludc a third left tum lane for the eastbound off-ramp approach at this intersection. 3) With the proposed project traffic added to Year 2030 No Project mainline freeway volumes, projected LOS on 1-580 and 1-680 would remain unchanged. However, with a projected LOS F on various scgments of 1-580 and 1-680, project trips would be adding to Dublin Conununity Development Department 108 Mission PeakIFredrich Propcl1ics Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 an already deficient condition. These specific segments would not meet the ACCMA monitOling standard of LOS E during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. This is considered a significant cumulative impact. Although efficiency improvements (such as HOV lanes) and expanded public transportation could be added in the 1-580 eOlTidor, little or no additional freeway capacity for single-occupant vehicles is planned. Actions to encourage altemative travel modes include advocating HOV lanes on 1-580, extending BART to Livennore, implementing the 1-580 Smart Corridor approach (including adaptive signal timing, transit priority systems, incident management, and ramp metering), and supporting other major investments in transit. In addition, the City of Dublin plans to construct the Dublin Boulevard extcnsion to North Canyons Parkway in Livermore as a six-lane parallel arterial that will provide additional lane capacity along the 1-580 corridor. The following measure shall be incorporated into the project. Even though the following improvements will ameliorate traffic conditions on 1-580 and 1-680 in the Tri-Valley, they will not mitigate the impact of projectcd traffic demand on these freeways to a Jess-than- significant lcvel. Therefore, the impact on the freeway system of 1-580 and 1-680 in the project arca remains a sit,'nificant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure 81 The project developer shall pay the Tri-Valley Transportation Development (TVTD) Fee for its proportionate share of 1-580 and 1-680 improvements, including HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and interchange improvements. The project shall also pay its proportionate share toward public transportation improvements (e.g., West Dublin BART Station and Express Bus Service from Livennore to East Dublin BART Station) by payment of the TVTD Fcc. c) Result in a change in air trajjic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels ar a change in lacatian that results in substantial safety risks? NI. The project is not sited near any public or private airport that would require a change in air traffic pattems. The project would have no impact on air traffic pattems at ay airport. d) Substantially increase hazards due to. a design feature (e.g., shw]J curves ar dangerous intcrsectians)? LS/M. The six residential lots proposed adjacent to the east side of Tassajara Road could restrict the sight distance along Tassajara Road to the north for motorists exiting the site and have a significant impact. Improvements to the project entrance at Tassajara Road would have to be revised to improve the sight distance at the proj ect entrance. It is suggested, but not required, the proj ect incorporate traffic calming devices into the intemal streets of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to reduce the potential for motorist to speed. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationJPrezoning PA04-16 109 The following mitigation mcasures shall be. incorporatcd into the project to reduce site distance impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measnrc 82 The project applicant shall revisc the project entrance at Tassajara Road to the satisfaction of the City Engincer to allow greater sight distance to the north. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. The project has adequate access for emergency vehicles. Tbc project providcs access for emergency vehicles at tbe main project entrance at Tassajara Road. The main project entrance at Tassajara Road is designed and sized adequately to allow suitable access for fire trucks and otber emergency vehicles. The proj ect also provides a second point for emergency vehicle access from the adjacent Silvera project to the south. The project cOlmects with the adjacent development ncar the southeast corncr of Fallon Crossing to provide a second point of access for emergency vehicles. The fire department would review the site plan to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided at both locations. The project would have no impact with emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? NI. The project would be required to provide sufficient on-site parking, including parking for residents and guest as required by the City of Dublin zoning ordinance. The project would havc no impact on parking. g) Canflict with adapted palicies, plans, ar pragrams supparting alternative transpartation (e.g., bus turnauts, bicycle racks)? NI. The project would not conflict with or impact any existing or planned bus turnouts. The project would have no impact to altemative transportation programs. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Environmental Setting The project site is served by the following service providers: . Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Company . Communications: SBC . Water supply and sewage treatment: Dublin San Ramon Services District . Stoml drainage: City of Dublin . Solid waste disposal: Amador Valley Waste Management . Cable Television: Comcast Project Impacts Would the project: Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationlPrezoning PA 04-16 110 a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements af the applicable Regianal Water Quality Cantrol Baard? Nl. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide sewer service to the project. Sewage from the project would be treated at DSRSD's Regional Treatment Plant in Pleasanton prior to discharge into the East Bay Discharge Authority's outfall line for eventual disposal into San Francisco Bay. DSRSD officials indicate that adequate capacity exists within the regional treatment facility to accommodate the project. The project proposes 103 dwelling units rather than the 172 units allowed by the Eastel11 Dublin Specific Plan. The project would gcncrate less wastewater than planned for the site and evaluated in the Eastel11 Dublin Specific Plan EIR. The project would have no impact on the capacity of the wastewatcr treatmcnt plant beyond the Eastel11 Dublin EIR analysis. b) Require ar result in the canstructian af new water ar wastewater treatment facilities or cxpansian 0.[ existing facilities, the canstrLlction af which cauld cause significant environmental effects? LS/M. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide water and wastcwater service to the project. As stated above, the project proposes 103 units rather than 172 allowed by the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan. As a result, the project would require approximately 7.3 acre-feet of water less than evaluated in the Eastel11 Dublin Specific Plan EIR. The project would be required to construct new water and wastewater lines on the site to distribute water to project residents and collect wastewater, respectively. The on-sitc water and wastewater lines would connect with largcr regional facilities in Tassajara Road. Thc construction of the required water and wastcwater lincs are not anticipated to cause any significant envirorunental effects. The project would also be rcquired to provide recycled water facilities so that reeyelcd water can he used for landscaped irrigation, when available. The Eastel11 Dublin Specific Plan EIR has mitigation measures to reduce wastewater and water service impacts. Mitigation Mcasures 3.5/1.0, 3.5/4.0, 3.5/5.0, 3.5/7.0, 3.5/9.0, 3.5/12.0,3.5/16.0,3.5/20.0,3.5/26.0,3.5/27.0, 3.5/37.0, 3.5/38.0, 3.5/40.0, of the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan are restated below and will be implemented with the project to reduce wastewater and water service impacts to less- than-significant: Mitigation Measure 83 The project shall COlmcct to the public sewer (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/1.0). Mitigation Measure 84 The project developer shall provide the City a "will serve" wastewater letter from DSRSD prior to issuance of a grading permit (Eastel11 Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/4.0). Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 111 Mitigation Measnre 85 The design and construction of all wastewater systems shall be in accordance with DSRSD service policies, procedures, design and construction standards and master plans (Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment/Spccifie Plan Mitigation Mcasure 3.5/5.0) Mitigation Measure 86 Thc project developer shall prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation, ineluding means to mmlmlze wastewater flows, to supplement the information in the Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.517.0). Mitigation Measure 87 The project shall be consistent with wastewater treatment plant expansion as set forth in DSRSD's master plan (Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/9.0). Mitigation Measure 88 The project shall be required to use recyeled water or landscape inigation in accordance with DSRSD's Recyelcd Water Policy per AR III page 821 (Eastem Dublin General Plan Amcndment/Speeifie Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.5/12.0). Mitigation Measure 89 The rccyeled watcr treatment system shall be planned, designed, and constructed for energy efficicncy in operation (Eastcrn Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/16.0). Mitigation Measnre 90 The construction of thc recycled water distribution system shall be in accordance with all applicable Statc and local regulations (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/20.0). Mitigation Measure 91 Water conservation mcasures shall be dcsigned into the project (Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendmcnt/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/26.0). Mitigation Measnre 92 A recyclcd water distribution system shall be incorporated into the projcct (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/27.0). Mitigation Measnre 93 The design and construction of thc water system facility improvements shall be in accordance with DSRSD standards (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measurc 3.5/37.0). Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties AnnexationlPrezoning PA 04-16 ] 12 Mitigation Measure 94 The project developer shall provide the City a "will serve" water letter from DSRSD prior to the issuance of a grading pellllit (Eastelll Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0). Mitigation Measure 95 The water distribution system shall be planned, designed and constmcted for energy efficient operation (Eastelll Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 3.5/40.0). c) Require ar result in thccanstructian af new starm water drainage facilities ar expansian af existing facilities, the canstructian af which cauld cause significant environmental effects? LS/M. The project would require the construction of storn1 drain collection facilities to collect surface water generated by the project. Surface water runoff would be collectcd in the streets and directed to catch basins by curbs and gutters. A stOlll1 drain collection system would direct all surface water runoff to an on-site retention basin that is proposed in the northwest area of the site. The retention basin would hold the water until it either evaporates, during summer months, or is discharged into the unnamed tributary that extends along thc northwest project boundary. The project would generatc less StOllll water runoff than planned for the sitc by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because thc project proposes 69 fcwer units. A rctention basin is proposed in the west p0l1ion of the site and cast of the unnamed tributary within the 100- foot creek setback. The construction ofthe retcntion basin would not have any significant environmental impacts because thcre are no sensitive or important biological rcsources prcscnt that could be impacted. A storm water outfall structure is proposed to be eonstructcd in the um1amed tributary along the north project boundary. The outfall structure will allow storm water from the retention basin to be discharged into the unnamed stream where the water will then flow in a southwesterly direction to Tassajara Creek. An outfall structure will be constructed to allow surface water from the water quality pond to be discharged from the site. Riprap will be installed below the outfall pipe to reduce and minimize soil erosion. The Califomia Department of Fish and Game has issued a Streambed Alteration AgreEment to the project applicant to allow constmction of the outfall. The Regional Water Quality Control Board is in the process of issuing a 401 water quality permit to allow thc construction of the outfall. The project applicant's biologist is meeting sh0l11y with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss the mitigation program that will be required by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for construction of the outfall. The acquisition of all required pemlits from the resource agencies will ensure that all impacts with thc construction of the outfall arc properly mitigated. Dublin Community Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 113 The outfall will allow that all surface water from the project that enters the retention basin and water quality pond is properly disehargcd from the site into the unnamed stream along the northern project boundary. The project applicant will need to acquire a construction pennit for the outfall from the City of Dublin after all regulatory agency pemlits are received. The issuance of a building pem1it for the outfall by the City will reduce the construction of storm water drainage facilities for the project to less-than- signiticant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to. serve the praject fram existing entitlements and resaurces, ar are new ar expanded entitlements needed? NI. A water service analysis and water supply assessment" was prepared to cvaluate the availability of water for the project. The project is consistent with the previous planning and water supply assumptions included in the Eastern Dublin Final Eastern Dublin Final WSA 47 On December 21, 1999, DSRSD and the City of Dublin cntered into a "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Cooperative Implementation of the Agrecment to Scttle Water Litigation". (MOU). Pursuant to the MOU, DSRSD agreed to prepare a Programmatic Water Service Analysis to provide a basis for the preparation of future project-specific watcr service analysis required under the Settlement Agreement for annexations in Eastern Dublin. The Final Revised Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin" (Eastern Dublin Final WSA) was completcd in December 2001. Thc Eastcrn Dublin Pinal WSA was prepared in compliance with thc following: . A Mediator's Order (following a mcdiation on the adequacy of the analysis contained in the document); . The December 21, 1999 MOU between the City of Dublin and DSRSD; and . The Settlement Agreement Water Service Analysis contains the basis for DSRSD's project-specific analysis and the cvaluation of impacts associated with DSRSD's provision of water service to the entire Eastem Dublin area with DSRSD's water service sphere of influence. In addition, it contains euuent assessments of factors potentially affecting water supply reliability and delivered water quality impacts resulting from future service to Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Pinal WSA supports the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, MOU, and the Mediator's Order to discuss DSRSD service to future customers in the context of regional and state water supply practices including consideration of industry 46 Water Service Analysis and Water Supply Assessment, West Yost & Associates, August 6, 2004 for Dublin San Ramon Services \Vater District 47 Final Revised Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin, prepared [or the Dublin San Ramon Services District, prepared by Camp Dresser & I\1cKcc, Inc., West Yost & Associates and Jerome 13 Gilbert, December 2001. 48 Final Revised Water Service Analysis for Eastern Dublin, prepared for the Dublin San Ramon Services District, prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., West Yost & Associates and Jerome B Gilbert, December 2001. Dublin Community Development Department 114 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-t6 practices regarding data reliability and the precision of projections as accurate indicators of future eonditions.49 In accordance with these requirements, West Yost Associates prepared a follow-up Water Service Analysis for the proposed Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project. The currently proposed project is consistent with the previous planning and water supply assumptions included in the Eastern Dublin Final WSA. As such, this Technical Memorandum demonstrates that the findings related to the proposed Project (Fallon Crossing) are consistcnt with the findings and conclusions contained in the Eastern Dublin Final WSA.50 Se/late Bill 610 (Califamia Water Cade Sectio/l10910) In 2001 the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), a bill that amended California Water Codc Section 10910. This bill required coordination bctween the land use approval process and the water planning process. Specifically, it requires that a city or county which determines that certain large projects subjcct to CEQA request a Water Supply Assessment for the project at the timc it detcmlines that the project would require an environmental impact report, a negative deelaration or a mitigated negative dcclaration. Per SB 610, a project is defined to inelude a proposed residential dcvelopment of more than 500 dwelling units. As currently proposed, the Mission Peak Project (Fallon Crossing) only includes 103 units. However, for completeness, in addition to satisfying the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, this environmental document along with the management plan mentioned above, also satisfies the requirements of California Water Code Section 109101. Although it has becn determined that DSRSD can provide an adequate supply ofwatcr to the project, mcasures can be incorporated into the project to reduce water consumption. The Fallon Crossing project would be required to incorporate all applicable water conservation measures in the Specific Plan to reduce water consumption. These measures inelude, but arc not limited to low flow showerheads, low-flow toilets, and faucets. (see action program 9a on page 186 of Specific Plan). Under SB 221 (Govemment Code 1)66473.7), the Lead Agency must include as a condition of tentative map approval a requirement that the subdivision applicant obtain Written Verification that sufficient water supply is available for the project. III this instance, DSRSD has updated its Urban Water Management Plan, which includes the Fallon Crossing site. Consistent with SB 610, a Water Supply Assessment has been 49 Mission Peak Project, Water Service Analysis and W3tcr Supply Assessment, West Yost & Associates, August G, 2004, page 2. 50 Ibid, pages 2 and 3. Dublin Community Development Department 115 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Almexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 requested and the results discussed above. Based on this infomlation, the project can be adequately supplied with water by DSRSD with no impact. e) Result in a determinatian by the wastewater treatment pravider that serves ar may serve the praject that it has adequate capacity to.. serve the praject's projected demand in addition to. the pravider's existing cammitments? NI. The project is located within the wastewater service area of DSRSD. The project would be rcquired to construct and extend existing scwer lines in Tassajara Road to thc site and construct on-sitc sewer collection lines in compliance with DSRSD design criteria and specifications. The project proposes fewer residential units for the site than planned by the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan, therefore, the project would generate less wastewater than estimated and evaluated in the Eastenl Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. The Eastenl Dublin Specific Plan ElR contains mitigation measures, which have been adopted by thc City to reduce wastewater and water service impacts. Action Program Numbers 9R, 9G, 9E, 9S, 9F and 9N of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan will be implemented to reduce wastewater and watcr scrvicc impacts of the project to no impact. The District has sufficient wastcwater capacity to serve thc proposed Fallon Crossing project with no impact beyond that analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to. accammadate the project's solid waste dispasal needs? NI. The City of Dublin contracts with Livenllore-Dublin Disposal Company to collect solid waste from households and businesses and transport it to the Altamont Landfill located in eastern Alameda County. The landfill elmently has an anticipated capacity until the year 2005 and plans arc underway to extend landfill capacity for an additional 50 years. Solid waste generated by the project would bc collected by Livemlore-Dublin Disposal Company and once rccycled, the remaining solid waste transported to the Altamont Landfill. The Eastenl Dublin Specific Plan has two policies to reduce the quantity of solid waste that is hauled to the Altamont Landfill, which is approaching its capacity. These policies are listed below. Policy 8-7: Support ACWMA efforts to devclop altenlative disposal facilities for organic waste in thc Tri- Valley area, particularly for compo sting and re-use of organic material. Policy 8-8: Encourage the separation of recyelable materials from the general waste stream by supporting the development of a recycling collection system and facilities. The solid waste that would be generated by the Fallon Crossing project is less than estimated by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the project proposes fewer units Dublin Community Development Department 116 Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezonillg P^ 04-16 than allowcd by the Specific Plan. Thereforc, thc project would generate less solid waste that would be transpOlicd to thc Altamont Landfill. The project would have no impact on solid wastc disposal beyond that analyzcd in thc Eastcrn Dublin EIR. g) Camply with federal, state, and lacal statutes and regulatians related to sa lid waste? NJ. The collection of solid waste from the project by the City's solid waste provider, Livcrmore-Dublin Disposal Company, would collcct and disposc of solid waste from the project in compliance with all federal, statc and local statutes and rcgulations related to solid waste. The project would have no impact with rcgards to compliance with federal, state and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Daes the project have the patential to degrade the quality af the environment, substantially reduce the habitat af a fish ar wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populatian to. drap below selfsustaining levels, threaten to. eliminate a plant ar animal cammunity, reduce the number ar restrict the range af a rare ar endangered plant ar animal or eliminate impartant examples af the majar periads af Califamia histary ar prehistalY? NI. The project would not gcnerate any impacts beyond those examined in the Program EIR for the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Biological surveys have been conducted for the proposed development of the Fallon Crossing parcel to detenl1ine if any plant or animal species would bc impactcd. Based on the results of those studies, and peer revicwed by the City, the project would not have any sit,'11ifieant impacts to biological resources with the incorporation of reeommcnded mitigation measures. In addition, thcrc are no known cultural or historical resources on either parcel that would bc significantly impacted. The biological and cultural resource impacts that arc addressed in this Initial Study were also adequately addressed in the Program ElR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. Unknown resources encountered during project grading and construction will be prescrvcd and protected by measures suggcsted in the environmcntal documcnt. b) Daes the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively cansiderable? ("Cumulatively cansiderable" means that the incremental effects af a praject are cansiderable when viewed in cannectian with the effects af past prajects, the effects af ather current projects, and the effects af probable fiflure prajects? LS. Although incrcmental increases and cumulative effects such as traffic, noise, air emissions, and demand for public services and utili tics would occur, these cumulative impacts were adequately addressed in the Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and measures recommended accordingly to mitigate the impacts. Thc anncxation of the Fredrich and Fallon Crossing parcels and proposed development of Fallon Crossing would not have any cumulative impacts in addition to or greater than those identified in the Eastcrn Dublin Specific Plan. Dublin Community Development Dcparhncnt Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Annexation/Prezoning PA 04-16 117 c) Daes the praject have environmental effects that wauld cause substantial adverse effects an human beings, either directly ar indirectly? LS. Thc dcvelopmcnt of the Fallon Crossing projcct would not have any environmcntal cffects in addition to those identified in tbc Program EIR for the East Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, cxccpt as identified in this Mitigated Ncgative Dcclaration. Bascd on thc project dcsign and the measures that havc been designed into the project and recommendcd mitigation measurcs to minimize impacts, the Fallon Crossing development would not have any advcrse effects on human beings, either directly or indircctly. All of the impacts that have been identified that would be associated with the Fallon Crossing project are either addressed in this Initial Study or arc addrcssed in the Program EIR for the Eastem Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For those impacts that are not addressed in the East Dublin Specific Plan Program EIR, this Initial Study provides mitigation mcasures to reduce those impacts to less than sit,'llificant. Dublin Conununity Development Department Mission Peak/Fredrich Properties Anncxation/Prezoning PA 04-16 118 This page intentionally left blank APPENDICES APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS