HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 18-07 Wallis Ranch Mitigated Neg DecRESOLUTION NO. 18 - 07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THE DUBLIN RANCH WEST/WALLIS RANCH PROJECT TO
EXPAND ONTO PROPERTY IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PA 05 -051
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Martin Inderbitzen, representing Chang Su-0 (aka Jennifer) Lin, et
al., submitted applications to the City of Dublin (the "City ") requesting to amend the approved PD-
Planned Development District Stage 1 Development Plan to include construction of an emergency
vehicle access road, possible bioswale, herpetological exclusion fencing and barrier, and grading on an
adjacent 11.6 -acre parcel of land within Contra Costa County to support the development of Dublin
Ranch West /Wallis Ranch (the "expansion project "). The amendments also include minor revisions and
refinements to the approved site plan and related uses. The applications include a PD- Planned
Development District Stage 2 Development Plan, subdivision maps and other requests substantially in
compliance with prior project approvals and the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan amendments; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council approved General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
amendments (Resolution 43 -05, incorporated herein by reference), a PD- Planned Development District
prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan (Ordinance 10 -05, incorporated herein by reference),
and other approvals for the Dublin Ranch West /Wallis Ranch project (hereafter, "Dublin Ranch West"), a
189 -acre area located immediately to the south of the expansion project and within the City of Dublin.
The currently requested amendment applies to the 184.1 -acre Lin Family portion of the 2005 approvals,
located on the west side of Tassajara Road at the northerly City limits; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Ranch West is located in Eastern Dublin, for which the City Council adopted
the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and certified a program Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15168 (SCH
91103064; City Council Resolution No. 51 -93) and Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994
(collectively the "Eastern Dublin EIR "), which is available for review in the City Planning Department
and is incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified potentially significant environmental impacts and
related mitigation measures, which the City adopted together with mitigation findings and a related
Mitigation Monitoring Program (City Council Resolution No. 53 -93), which mitigation measures and
monitoring program continue to apply to development in Eastern Dublin including the Dublin Ranch
West project. The City also adopted findings regarding alternatives and a statement of overriding
considerations for significant impacts that could not be avoided; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the 2005 approval of the Dublin Ranch West project, the City
Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR ") and adopted mitigation
findings, findings regarding alternatives, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation
monitoring plan (City Council Resolution No. 42 -05, which is available for review in the City Planning
Reso No. 18 -07, Adopted 2/20/07, Item 6.1
Page 1 of 3
Department and incorporated herein by reference). The approved mitigation measures from the SEIR
continue to apply to the Dublin Ranch West project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan contains minor revisions and refinements to
the previously approved Stage 1 Development Plan for the project area within the City. The proposed
amendment to the Planned Development zoning and Stage 1 Development Plan involves only minor
changes to the land use areas and incorporates the 11.6 acre adjacent property in Contra Costa County,
further defines the points of access to the property and the boundaries of the land use designations, and
adds specific and key elements specific to the Tassajara Creek Open Space Corridor. The City reviewed
the various applications and determined that the revisions and refinements for the project within the City
substantially comply with the project and analyses from the prior EIRs. These revisions and refinements
are shown on the proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans. The proposed expansion of the
project area onto 11.6 acres of land in Contra Costa County was not included or analyzed in either the
Eastern Dublin EIR or the SEIR; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed expansion consistent with CEQA
Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163 and determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was required
in order to analyze potential environmental impacts for the proposed expansion onto the Contra Costa
County parcel; and
WHEREAS, based on the Initial Study, the City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration dated
September 2006 which reflected the independent judgment of the City as to the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed expansion project and which was circulated for public review from September
20, 2006 to October 19, 2006. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached as Exhibit A and is
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City received one comment letter on the Mitigated Negative Declaration during
the public review period, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated October 13, 2006. The
letter asked whether adequate off -site mitigation lands pursuant to proposed Mitigation 3 are available for
CTS aestivation habitat. By letter dated December 13, 2006, the City responded that adequate off -site
mitigation lands are expected to be available. The comment letter and the City's response letter are
attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated January 9, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference, described
and analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Dublin Ranch West project, including the
expansion project, for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative
Declaration at a noticed public hearing on January 9, 2007, at which time all interested parties had the
opportunity to be heard, and adopted Resolution No. 07 -02 recommending adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated February 20, 2007 and incorporated herein by reference,
analyzed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Dublin Ranch West project, including the expansion
project, for the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration at
a noticed public hearing on February 20, 2007, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to
be heard; and
Reso No. 18 -07, Adopted 2/20/07, Item 6.1
Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis on the potential for environmental impacts from the expansion project; and
WHEREAS, the prior EIRs identified significant unavoidable impacts that would apply to
development of the Dublin Ranch West project and adopted statements of overriding considerations in
connection with those approvals. A statement of overriding considerations for the current project
approval is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program required by CEQA for this
project is attached as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated September 2006 together with the October
13, 2006 letter from the Regional Water Control Board and the City's December 13, 2006 response
constitute the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the expansion project. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration and related project and environmental documents, including the prior EIRs analyzing the
portion of the project located in the City, are available for review in the City planning department, file PA
05 -051, during normal business hours and are incorporated herein by reference. The custodian of the
documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Dublin Ranch
West /Wallis Ranch project, including the expansion project, is the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568, attn: Mike Porto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mitigated Negative Declaration together with the
previously certified Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR adequately describe
the impacts of the expansion project and the project area located within the City. There is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the Dublin Ranch West expansion project as
mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the identified mitigation measures, attached as Exhibits A and B; the Statement of
Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached as Exhibit D.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 2007, by the following votes:
AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti and Scholz, and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Reso No. 18 -07, Adopted 2/20/07, Item 6.1
Page 3 of 3
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................ ..............................2
Applicant/Contact Person ..................................................................
..............................2
Project Location and Context .............................................................
..............................2
Project Background and Description .................................................
..............................3
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .....................................
.............................12
EarlierAnalyses ......................................................................
.............................23
Attachment to Initial Study .....................................................
.............................24
1. Aesthetics ....................................................................
.............................24
2. Agricultural Resources ................................................ .............................25
3. Air Quality .................................................................. .............................25
4. Biological Resources ................................................... .............................26
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................... .............................30
6. Geology and Soils ....................................................... .............................31
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................... .............................32
8. Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................... .............................33
9. Land Use and Planning ............................................... .............................35
10. Mineral Resources ....................................................... .............................36
11. Noise ...........................................................................
.............................36
12. Population and Housing ..............................................
.............................37
13. Public Services ............................................................
.............................37
14. Recreation ...................................................................
.............................38
15. Transportation / Traffic .................................................
.............................38
16. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................
.............................39
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...........................
.............................40
Initial Study Preparer ... ............................... ......................................
...............................
References...........................................................................................
.............................41
Persons /Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document ...........
.............................41
` L,
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of
implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the
environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The Initial Study relies on two previous
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs): a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
91103064) and a Supplemental EIR for the Dublin Ranch West Project ( "Dublin Ranch West
Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," State Clearinghouse No. 2003022083,
certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005). The former document, known as the "Eastern
Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing,
Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage,
Soils, Geology and Seismcity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources,
Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. The latter document (the "Dublin Ranch West
SEIR), supplemented the 1993 EIR as described more fully below and addressed the following
topics: Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Land Use, Population,
Housing and Employment, Transportation and Circulation, Utilities and Services, Schools, Parks
and Recreation Facilities.
Applicant/Contact Person
Martin Inderbitzen
PO Box 1537
Pleasanton CA 94566
Project Background
In 1993 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan, which
addressed long -term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central portion
of Dublin.
In 2005, the City of Dublin certified a Supplemental EIR for the approximately 188.9 -acre
Dublin Ranch West Project. Dublin Ranch West was (at that time) located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north,
Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the
existing Dublin City limit line to the south. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin.
Exhibit 2 shows the project area in relation to the City of Dublin.
The Supplemental EIR ( "SEIR ") considered changes to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan including relocation of certain land uses within and adjacent to Tassajara
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Creek, which flows through a portion of the area, to allow preservation of greater amounts of
open space, eliminated a land use designation for an Elementary School for the Dublin Unified
School District that was no longer needed, and relocated local parks within the Project area. A
Stage 1 Planned Development application and prezoning was also included as part of the Project.
The approved Dublin Ranch West Project includes the construction of up to 1,064 dwellings at
varying densities, along with Neighborhood Parks, Neighborhood Squares and other Open
Spaces. This Project included three separate and adjacent properties, the largest being the Dublin
Ranch West property (184 acres of land), the Bragg property (1.6 acre) and the Sperfslage
property (3.2 acres).
The Dublin Ranch West Project also proposed annexation of the 188.9 -acre area to the City of
Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), which has subsequently been
completed.
Project Description
The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) prepared for the Dublin Ranch West
Project did not analyze the approximately 11.6 -acre portion of the Project located immediately
north of the Dublin Ranch West area and within the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. This
Initial Study supplements the certified SEIR for the 11.6 -acre site by analyzing potential impacts
for proposed actions on this parcel.
The 11.6 -acre parcel is proposed to be partially graded and would contain an emergency vehicle
accessway (EVA) and a possible bioswale which are essential to the functioning of the overall
Dublin Ranch West development. The entire parcel would be placed in a permanent
Conservation Easement as part of the mitigation for impacts of the Dublin Ranch West Project
on special- status species and would preclude future development of habitable structures in this
area. Also as part of the mitigation for the Dublin Ranch West project, a permanent
herpetological fence or barrier, to prevent movement of California tiger salamanders (CTS) into
the development area, will be installed around the development footprint of the Dublin Ranch
West Project. This fence /barrier will be along the southern border of the project site. The
installation will follow construction activities.
The project site is currently vacant with moderate to steep slopes toward the south and west. The
site includes portions of a natural drainage swale north of the site that flows into Tassajara
Creek, which forms the eastern boundary of the site. Aside from aquatic habitat within the creek
along the perimeter of the site, the site consists of upland, grassland habitat.
Exhibit 3 shows the location of this parcel in relationship to the larger Dublin Ranch West
property. Hereinafter, references to the "project" site or "Contra Costa County Project" site refer
to the approximately 11.6 -acre area that is the focus of this environmental document, while
references to the Dublin Ranch West development/project refer to the portion of the development
area located within the City of Dublin.
Grading permit
The project would include a grading permit to be issued by Contra Costa County just for that
portion of the project lying within this County. Exhibit 4 shows a preliminary grading plan that
shows that grading would take place on about 42 %, or 4.9 acres of the 11.6 -acre parcel.
Maximum cut will be approximately 33' and maximum fill of approximately 20'. In total,
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 200E
approximately 68,300 cubic yards (38,700 cut, 29,600 fill) of earth would be moved on the
parcel. This grading is required for two major reasons. First, the design of neighborhoods 1 and 2
within the Dublin Ranch West Project is such that grading onto the Contra Costa parcel is
necessary to accommodate the improvements required for this (northern) portion of the Dublin
Ranch West development. Secondly, this grading is needed to accommodate a total 20' wide
EVA (16' paved surface with 2' gravel shoulders on each side) required by the Alameda County
Fire Department for access between neighborhoods 1 and 2 of Dublin Ranch West. The locations
of these two neighborhoods are shown on Exhibit 4. The EVA cannot be accommodated in the
Dublin portion of the project area because of the elevation difference between Neighborhoods 1
and 2 and limitations posed by California tiger salamander habitat.
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)
An EVA has been envisioned to be located on the Contra Costa parcel since the inception of the
development process for Dublin Ranch West. The site development plan in the SEIR shows a
conceptual EVA /trail in the approximate current location of the EVA but the text of that
document makes it clear the 11.6- acre Contra Costa parcel is not part of the project that was
analyzed in the SEIR.
The EVA would be situated approximately 100 feet north of the county line and would extend
from about the middle of the northern boundary of Neighborhood 1 (between lots 17 and 18) to
the northwestern portion of Neighborhood 2 where it would intersect "A" Lane at the location
where it curves south to become "F" Street. The EVA is required by the Alameda County Fire
Department because vehicular access to Neighborhood 1 is limited to only one road and
blockage of that street would preclude ingress and egress which in the case of an emergency
could lead to a life - threatening situation. There is no practicable location for the EVA within the
Dublin portion of the development. Exhibit 4 shows the location of the proposed EVA.
In order to accommodate the EVA, potential bioswale and the design of Neighborhoods 1 and 2,
the southern portion of the Contra Costa parcel would have to be graded. Cut and fill in this area
would range between approximately 33' and 20' respectively. Most grading would be adjacent to
Neighborhood 1 (in the vicinity of the EVA) but a lesser amount would also occur adjacent to
Neighborhood 2. The daylight line would be as far as approximately 200' north of the county
boundary but would average only about 50' north of that line.
Bioswale and herpetological fencing
The other feature of Dublin Ranch West which may need to be located on the Contra Costa
parcel is an approximately 360' long bioswale, a water quality feature to treat storm water. This
facility, along with piping to connect it to the storm drainage system, would be located at the far
eastern end of the parcel ranging between about 80' and 150' north of the county boundary. The
bioswale may be needed to help satisfy the clean water requirements of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for Dublin Ranch West. If found acceptable by the RWQCB, a
basin performing both water quality and detention within the Alameda County portion of the
project would be utilized in lieu of the bioswale.
The project includes construction of a herpetological fence around sensitive biological issues on
the site.
Exhibit 4 shows the location of the potential bioswale.
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Land use entitlements
Land uses proposed on the 11.6 -acre Contra Costa parcel would be addressed in an amended
Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West and will also be included on the Stage 2
Development Plan, Vesting Master and Tentative Maps, Site Development Review and
Development Agreement.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
0
0
U
m
Z
m
d
e"
3
p
N PA'B�GO�
":B:A,Y
San
Rafael
Martinez
Berkeley
Concord
Walnut
Creek
Leandro
DUBLIN
C eeo
sw
Livermore
Hayward Pleasanton
92
Fremont
84
Redwood
City
Palo
Alto
Newark
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San
Jose
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
N
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST o z 4 s 8 f0 miles
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
Richmond
seo
Mill 101
Valley
ctl
o
San Francisco
I
A .N
Daly
s City
;B
tot
T
a�
San Mateo
h
I
Half
Moon
Bay
tc:
Fa,
Martinez
Berkeley
Concord
Walnut
Creek
Leandro
DUBLIN
C eeo
sw
Livermore
Hayward Pleasanton
92
Fremont
84
Redwood
City
Palo
Alto
Newark
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San
Jose
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
N
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST o z 4 s 8 f0 miles
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
Blue Ox Associates, Berkeley, California 3 -10 -2006
°1Sr
• �a
• y
I
1
aw ■ ®■
Contra Costa County Parcel
D m
w
a D
n
[CITY OF PLEASANTON]
S•
�•
Dub"
Ranch
I
■
•
�
West
Project
ro
��
®, s•�'
a
®•�•
[CITY
OF SAN
RAMON]
�.
•
PARKS RESERVE FORCES
• ®•
TRAINING AREA
•
N
I
•
i
N
FEDERAL• : SANTA RITA
:CORRECTIONAL: REHABILITATION
�■
y
CENTER
1 INSTITUTION
6
q[
(("AMP PARKS)
r, v .........:.... fir ... ..
:. <
D m
w
a D
n
[CITY OF PLEASANTON]
Exhibit 2
PROJECT LOCATION
City Limit°
N
CITY OF DUBLIN
0 V4 V2 314 1 mile
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
I
I
■
ro
��
a
Exhibit 2
PROJECT LOCATION
City Limit°
N
CITY OF DUBLIN
0 V4 V2 314 1 mile
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
0
a_
M
O
U
d
d
v
m
v
e"
0
d
3
C
Exhibit 3
SITE CONTEXT
N Area Boundary
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST o soo soo 1200 feet
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
Contra Costa
County Parcel
F• F£°
• ,F F .F .F F`t .a FF •f
•�'`^ F'`�•`'�F° TIPPER -
"
r££FS,r`R•F•�
MOLLER
Ff,
'WY7MWIIALMM1WbiN
COU P'
e
COgTP
CONi'- UNTO'
s
sa��
MEDA
A
a
90
d
6
LIN
VARGAS
(DUBLIN RANCH WEST)
MISSION
PEAK
FREDRICH
HOMES
G
��2
c
p9'Op9
County Right -of -Way
'9TH
Cam, �9
UNINCORPORATED
T
ALAMEDA COUNTY
ot.
9C BRAGG
CITYOFDUBIIN
2 OG�
PINN
SILVERIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA)
NEILSEN
ARAC
KOBOLD
DUBLIN
SPERFSLAGE
RANCH
PHASE 1
GYGI
EBRPD
Exhibit 3
SITE CONTEXT
N Area Boundary
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST o soo soo 1200 feet
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
l r
t,
MU
;
\
�?: ...�.:� . \. m..
,/ ���. .,L f ., kc €at.t ����.- ......:: :::::. �-":� _ / /J•f /l', `R —�.�� 'mil ; :: -�� 'a` w \\ \ \?�,�.
.V
r 1.1 .sa �t is r �� y� � :;.r. € / �/ ,�/ .-i.� C'•. ,' ';'.i. >\,> ° l ^'''�:`.
J
On
i
,
,
�L
1
t
�,.i .::..v �. .tit= :�:.... _:....... > :.•..... ...._.... ...... .t:.d.. ......: \\ a m. � \ ?'tii�.lEt:i ?'iii /� �.c �1 ,� Vii(
.v .� _.:.:.:�:. ;:.:: r; .:.:: :r. _. ._E; r:; ",:E:r.. \\ �� " �C� � ` `•\` \ ell'
`. / /i' � _I_ie ::y �•- ..,.. � \\ \ \..\ • \\`� r t.y is
\
of
,t
i
r 1
is \\
I
9
4
,Y �I
4r, .
•l.
w\
,J
i I
b
/ i
1 1 L
\ r
.I x �. t i ` ai•,
br � �� l r •` i
\ � i W., r ii /� -�\ \ ,, i3 d �r � '��� ..•fr' - ._� 1 j, ,y ! i / '� r , i k i- ` \� \. \ \ \\
r 6 `"• t // lli � 1l �,i , •.' �" �.� , .� \ .�. t ? .r r �l.i� r�. \, \ \:;'i
Neighborhood 1 Neighborhood 2
SOURCE: MacKay & Somps, 12 -7 -2005.
CITY OF DUBLIN
DUBLIN RANCH WEST
INITIAL STUDY / CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PARCEL
Exhibit 4
PROPOSED
GRADING AND LAND USE
Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration (City
of Dublin)
Approval of Amended Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans, Vesting Master and Tentative
Maps, Site Development Review and Development
Agreement (City of Dublin)
Issuance of Grading Permit (Contra Costa County)
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
F y,
1.
Project description
Construction of an Emergency Vehicle Access road,
possible bioswale, herpetological exclusion fencing and
barrier and grading on a 11.6 -acre of land within Contra
Costa County to support the development of the Dublin
Ranch West property immediately to the south within the
City of Dublin.
2.
Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3.
Contact person:
Michael A. Porto, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833 -6610
4.
Project location:
West of Tassajara Road and north of the Dublin Ranch
West development project in Contra Costa County
5.
Project contact person:
Martin Inderbitzen
6.
General Plan designations:
Agricultural (Contra Costa County)
7.
Zoning:
Agricultural (Contra Costa County).
8.
Other public agency required
approvals:
Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration (City
of Dublin)
Approval of Amended Stage 1 and Stage 2
Development Plans, Vesting Master and Tentative
Maps, Site Development Review and Development
Agreement (City of Dublin)
Issuance of Grading Permit (Contra Costa County)
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
-
Aesthetics
-
Agricultural
x
Air Quality
Resources
x
Biological Resources
x
Cultural Resources
x
Geology /Soils
-
Hazards and
x
Hydrology /Water
-
Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials
Quality
-
Mineral Resources
x
Noise
-
Population /Housing
-
Public Services
-
Recreation
-
Transportation/
Circulation
-
Utilities /Service
-
Mandatory Findings
Systems
of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and
the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately
addresses potential impacts and mitigates impacts to a less- than - significant level.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Mitigated Negative Declaration
will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have
been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature: _� .� /� . tk v Lug (iW) Date: gI1.(/n�,
Printed Name: PgJAAct A • IlAcrt4- _ For:
City of Dublin Page
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should
be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general factors (e.g.
the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when
the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies
elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
( i
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
I. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 3, 5)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 3, 5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 3, 5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5)
II. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to a non - agricultural use? (Source:
3,7)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source:
3,7)
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to a non - agricultural use? (Source:
3,7)
III. Air Quality (Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district
may be relied on to make the following
determinations). Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 3)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 13
September 2006
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 which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (3)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (Source: 3)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 4, 7)
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 3, 7)
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
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
3,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact 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?
(Source: 3, 7)
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? (Source: 3, 7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 3, 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 14
September 2006
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 3, 7)
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 3)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 3)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery?
(Source: 3)
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project
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
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault (Source: 2, 3)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 3)
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (3)
iv) Landslides? (3)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (3, 6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- and off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 7)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13 -1 -B of the California Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property? (Source: 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 15
September 2006
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 3)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 3, 4)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous into the environment?
(Source: 3, 4)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one - quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 4)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 3, 4)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 1)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 1)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
zn
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (Source: 1)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rage i o
September 2006
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?
(Source: 4, 6)
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 3)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g. the
production rate of 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: 3)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the aeration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Source: 3, 6, 7)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or 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:
4,6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 5)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? (Source: 2)
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 17
September 200E
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(2)
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 5)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 1, 2, 3)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (1, 2, 3)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
(Source: 1, 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2)
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 3, 5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (Source:
3,5)
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 18
September 2000
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (Source:4)
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 n the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 2)
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? (Source: 2)
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) ? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (2, 5)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 4, 6)
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
4
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rage i a
September 2006
XIV. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 4, 6)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 4, 6)
XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads or congestion at
intersections)? (3)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (3)
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? (3)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equipment? (3,7)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (7)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative transportation
(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(1)
City of Dublin
initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 20
September 2006
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (3, 5, 7)
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (4, 5)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (5, 6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing water
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (5, 6)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (5, 6)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b
City of Dublin
Initial Study /DRW /CC County parcel
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 21
September 2006
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects and the
effects of probable future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation.
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
Sources:
1. Final Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998)
2. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final EIRs, Addenda,
etc.)
3. Certified Dublin Ranch West Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
2003022082)
4. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
5. Site Visit
6. Review of project plans
7. Other Source
These documents are available for review at:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/DR /CC County Parcel September 2006
XVII. Earlier Analyses
This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether earlier EIRs (the EIR prepared for the
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064)
and an EIR prepared for the Dublin Ranch West project (State Clearinghouse No. 2003022083)
may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guideline (Section 15063
(c)(7)•
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial
Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.
91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a
Program EIR that was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993.
As part of the certification the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
impacts such as: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas,
electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for the Dublin
Ranch West portion of the Eastern Dublin area were assessed in the Dublin Ranch West Project
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City of Dublin on March 15, 2005
(State Clearinghouse #2003022083). The Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for regional air quality impacts.
The Eastern Dublin EIR and Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR contain a large number of
mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development
within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this
Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 23
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M Less - than - significant with adherence to mitigation measures contained in
this Initial Study
LS: Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR
NI: No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, Dublin Ranch West SEIR
and /or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
1. Aesthetics
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
NI. The 11.6 -acre parcel is not identified as a scenic vista. Construction of the approved
Dublin Ranch West project, consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, will preclude access to major portions of the site by the general public, although limited
recreational trail access may be permitted in the future as part of future projects undertaken by
others. Overall, the project would result in no impacts to scenic vistas.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways?
NI. Grading of the project site could alter the visual experience of travelers on scenic routes
along Tassajara Road, since existing natural topographic contours would be modified to allow
grading on the Dublin Ranch West site to the south. However, the graded areas would be
separated from passersby on Tassajara Road by intervening properties (the Tipper property and
the Moura property) and by vegetation and hills. The proposed project would also not result in
the construction of any above ground structures. Therefore, the proposed project would have no
impacts on scenic resources or scenic highways.
C) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site?
LS. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would change the visual character
of the site by modifying the existing natural topography through the grading process. However,
no above - ground structures would be built on the site that would cause a significant change and
the graded areas would be revegetated following grading to blend in with adjacent areas.
Therefore, there would be a less - than - significant impact with regard to degradation of the visual
character of the site.
d) Create light or glare?
NI. No structures would be constructed on the project site, so there would be no emission of
light or glare and no impact with regard to this topic.
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
2. Agricultural Resources
Project Impacts
a, c) Convert prime farmland to a non - agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non - agricultural use?
NI. The parcel included in this project may be classed as prime farmland, however, it is not
being used for agricultural purposes. Under the conservation easement that is proposed to be
placed on the parcel, agricultural uses could be undertaken, so long as such activities do not
interfere with special- status species on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, there would be no
impact with regard to impacts to farmland or conversion of the area to a non - agricultural land
use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
LS. The project area is designated on the Contra Costa County General Plan Land Use
Diagram and Zoning Map as Agriculture, however the uses and activities proposed for this
Project would not conflict with either the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The parcel was
formerly encumbered by a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract (Contract No. 13 -73),
but this contract was non - renewed in 1982 and is no longer valid. No impacts would therefore
result regarding this topic.
3. Air Quality
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan?
NI. The proposed project would involve installation of an EVA, a potential bioswale and
grading to support the development of the Dublin Ranch West Project to the south. There would
be no activities that would emit'air emissions on a permanent basis or conflict with the Bay Area
Air Quality Clean Air Plan. No impacts would therefore result.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
LS/M. Grading of the parcel would likely release dust and PM -10 particles into the atmosphere
during construction. Grading activities of the project could contribute to emissions exceeding
BAAQMD significance thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact which would be
reduced to a less - than - significant level through adherence to the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure 1. The project developer shall adhere to the following
requirements during grading activities. These standards shall be included in
grading plans and specifications.
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
a) Water graded areas in late morning and at the end of the day; the frequency of
watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Watering shall
include all excavated and graded areas and material to be transported off -site.
b) Daily cleanup of mud and dust carrying excavated materials onto street
surfaces shall be carried out.
c) Excavation haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other covers to minimize dirt
and dust spillage.
d) Replanting or repaving of graded areas should be accomplished as soon after
grading as possible.
e) Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be prohibited.
f) After completion of grading, fugitive dust on exposed soil surfaces shall be
controlled through seeding of native grasses and watering as necessary,
limiting on -site speeds of construction equipment to 15 mph and limiting use
of chemical soil palliatives to BAAQMD - approved products.
g) Require construction contractors to water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil,
sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind.
h) Require construction contractors to sweep daily (preferably with water
sweepers) all paved access road, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
i) Require construction contractors to install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
C) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
NI. The proposed project would not include vehicle trips or manufacturing activities that
would contribute to cumulatively considerable air pollutants, so there would be no impact with
regard to this topic.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors?
NI. The proposed project would not include habitable structures or a resident population that
would enable sensitive receptors to be exposed to significant pollutant concentrations. Proposed
uses on the parcel would not include manufacturing or other activities that would cause odors, so
no impacts would result.
4. Biological Resources
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special- status
species?
LS/M. Based on recent investigations of the subject parcel by the firm of H.T. Harvey &
Associates, four special- status species exist or have the potential to occur on the 11.6 -acre site,
including California tiger salamander, California red- legged frog, burrowing owl, and
loggerhead shrike (a special- status passerine). Based on previous analyses of the area included in
the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR and supplemental biological analysis prepared by
H.T. Harvey Associates (listed in the Reference section of this Initial Study), the presence of San
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Joaquin kit fox, pallid bat, Congdon's tarplant, western pond turtle, golden eagle, and Alameda
whipsnake are not anticipated to be present on the 11.6 -acre site. Special- status species
potentially present and appropriate mitigation measures are identified below.
California tiger salamander (CTS). A recent survey of the project site for the presence of CTS by
H.T. Harvey & Associates in the winter of 2003/04 found that CTS utilizing a breeding site
approximately 1,000 feet west of the project site, within the adjacent Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area, use burrows within the project site's upland grassland habitat when not at the
breeding site. A number of salamanders were trapped on the project site and the Dublin Ranch
West development site, indicating that the upland grassland habitat on these sites is used as
aestivation and dispersal habitat by CTS. Implementation of grading activities and construction
of site improvements could result in a potentially significant impact to CTS. This impact would
be reduced to a less - than - significant level through adherence to the following measures:
Mitigation Measure 2. A CTS management plan shall be developed by the Dublin
Ranch West project proponents, and approved by the City of Dublin and /or the County,
as appropriate, in consultation with CDFG and the USFWS, prior to construction
activities. This measure shall also apply to construction grading activities within the
Contra Costa County Project site. The Plan shall detail how CTS will be managed before
and during construction activities and will include the following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence /barrier prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire construction footprint (i.e., including both the Contra
Costa County parcel and the Dublin Ranch West development site), which shall
prevent CTS from entering the construction area and shall remain until the permanent
fence or barrier is installed. The existing one -way barrier, if approved by the USFWS,
is a functioning temporary barrier and may serve as the construction exclusion fence
if appropriately located, or the location may need to be adjusted if it is to be used as,
or in conjunction with, a temporary herpetological exclusion fence /barrier. A
maintenance schedule shall be included for this fencing.
b) A salvage plan that details how aestivating CTS will be adequately relocated from the
grading footprint within the project site and into permanently preserved suitable
upland habitat. The project area will become a portion of the permanently preserved
habitat (with the exception of the EVA).
Mitigation Measure 3. To compensate for the loss of CTS aestivation habitat, the project
proponent shall acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CTS aestivation habitat at a
1:1 ratio adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding and aestivation habitat and
construct a breeding pond, or as required by the USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation
aestivation habitat shall be located in the City of Dublin or Livermore Valley area as
close as is practicable, and as approved by the USFWS or CDFG and shall exhibit similar
characteristics to the habitat lost. In selecting off -site mitigation lands, preference shall be
given to preserving one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking
preserved areas to existing open space and other high quality habitat, and excluding or
limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall be
permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar method,
approved by the USFWS and CDFG, and obtained prior to the issuance of any
construction permits.
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Mitigation Measure 4. An Open Space Management Plan shall be prepared for the
preserved upland grassland habitats within the project area. This plan shall include
strategies for grassland habitat management to maintain CTS upland habitat, including
grazing or mowing to encourage ground squirrel use and limiting human access to
migratory routes to and from breeding habitats. If grazing is prescribed, the plan shall
comply with the Grazing Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment Area. The Open Space Management Plan shall also address management of
the habitats for other special- status species that may utilize these areas, including
California red - legged frog (CRLF), burrowing owl and migratory birds. The plan shall
include protection measures such as fencing, signage, reduced or indirect lighting, pet
control measures, trail use limitations (daytime only), and habitat monitoring and
reporting as appropriate for the proposed project. This plan shall be prepared by the
Project proponent and approved by USFWS and CDFG prior to construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 5. A qualified biologist (as identified by the City of Dublin and
Contra Costa County) shall monitor construction activities to ensure protective measures
are implemented and maintained (i.e. fencing is maintained, preserved areas are not
disturbed, etc.). The biological monitor shall have the authority to suspend any and all
construction activities 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 CDFG and /or the USFWS to report any mortality of
listed species during construction.
Mitigation Measure 6. During initial ground disturbing activities construction
employees shall receive an educational training program that includes information on
sensitive species identification and their potential habitat, approved mitigation measures
for the project, and actions employees should take if a sensitive species is encountered.
California red-legged frog (CRLF). Although unlikely, CRLF could occur along the drainage
swale adjacent to and within the northern boundary of the project area. CRLF may use the
upland grassland habitat within the project area to forage and, particularly along the drainage, for
dispersal. Following grading and construction, the intent of the project is to enhance this
drainage with rocks and woody debris, and perhaps low- growing shrubs, to provide cover for
dispersing frogs. No permanent loss of CRLF habitat will result from the project. As most
construction activities will occur during the dry season when CRLF are least likely to be present
on the site, impacts to this species are extremely unlikely and Mitigation Measures 2a, 5, and 6,
designed to reduce impacts to CTS, will also reduce potential impacts to CRLF. This impact will
be reduced to a I ess-than-si gnifi cant level through the combination of Mitigation Measures 2a, 5,
and 6, and the following measure:
Mitigation Measure 7. Prior to grading activities or any ground disturbance and
following installation of protective temporary construction fencing (Measure 2a above), a
qualified biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys. If CRLF are found within the
construction areas and if authorized by the USFWS, they shall be immediately moved to
undisturbed, preserved portions of the adjacent Tassajara Creek Conservation Area.
Burrowing Owl. Based on several surveys of the Dublin Ranch West project area, including the
11.6 -acre parcel in Contra Costa County, the potential presence of burrowing owls on the site has
been identified, primarily because of the number of burrows on the project parcel. If burrowing
City of Dublin rage zo
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
owls are identified as present, grading and related activities proposed for the parcel site would
result in a potentially significant impact, since burrowing owls are classed as a special- status
species. This impact would be reduced to a less -than significant level through adherence to the
following measures:
Mitigation Measure S. The following pre- construction survey, avoidance, and /or
compensation measures shall be applied for impacts to burrowing owls:
a) Pre - construction surveys for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist prior to any ground disturbance between September 1 and January 31. If
ground disturbance is delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the survey,
the site should be re- surveyed. If no over - wintering birds are present, burrows should
be removed prior to the nesting season. If over - wintering birds are present, no
disturbance should occur within 150 feet of occupied burrows. If owls must be moved
away from the disturbance area during this period, passive relocation measures must
be prepared according to current CDFG burrowing owl guidelines, approved by
CDFG, and completed prior to construction.
b) If construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 - September 1),
pre - construction surveys shall be conducted in the entire Dublin Ranch West area
within 30 days prior to construction and within 250 feet of the Dublin Ranch West
area prior to any ground disturbance. A minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be
maintained during the breeding season around active burrowing owl nesting sites
identified in pre - construction surveys to avoid direct loss of individuals.
c) If destruction of occupied (breeding or non - breeding season) burrows, or any burrows
that were found to be occupied during pre - construction surveys, is unavoidable, a
strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing burrows or
creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on permanently protected lands adjacent to
occupied burrowing owl habitat, and will include permanent protection of a minimum
of 6.5 acres of burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owl. A plan shall
be developed and approved by CDFG describing creation or enhancement of burrows,
maintenance of burrows and management of foraging habitat, monitoring procedures
and significance criteria, funding assurance, annual reporting requirements to CDFG,
and contingency and remediation measures.
Special- status breeding birds. Grading of a portion of the project parcel could eliminate
grasslands used by nesting special- status birds, including loggerhead shrike (potentially in the
few shrubs), , burrowing owl, and California horned lark. This would be a potentially significant
impact and would be reduced to a less - than - significant level through adherence to the following
measure:
Mitigation Measure 9. Prior to any tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified
biologist (approved by the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County, as appropriate) shall
conduct special - status breeding bird surveys throughout the grading area and mark an
appropriate buffer around any nests discovered. Buffers shall be a minimum of 250 feet
for raptors, and between 50 and 100 feet for special- status passerines depending on
habitat type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Nesting status shall be
monitored by a qualified biologist to determine when nests are no longer active. All
activities shall be prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged and moved
out of the nest.
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
Mitigation Measure 20. Vegetation and tree removal shall take place (as much as
practicable) outside of the breeding period for most birds (February- August is a broad
breeding period that covers most species).
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands?
LS. A small wetland area, approximately 0.1 -acre in size has been identified in the northeast
portion of the subject parcel, based on the document "Wallis Property, Alameda /Contra Costa
County Counties, Identification of Waters of the U.S." The proposed development plan for the
parcel notes the wetland area and surrounding area would not be developed but instead placed in
a conservation easement. Therefore, there would be a less - than - significant impact with regard to
wetlands and waters of the U.S.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?
LS. The proposed project would include grading of existing slope areas and construction of a
paved EVA. Neither of these activities would interfere or restrict the movement of native fish or
wildlife species. These would therefore be a less - than - significant impact with regard to this
topic.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances.
NI. The project would not conflict -with any policies or ordinances adopted by Contra Costa
County regarding protection of natural resources and no impact would result.
f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?
NI. The project site is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan area or a Natural
Community Conservation Plan area. No impacts would therefore result. A Conservation
Easement is proposed to be placed on the project site once improvements are constructed.
5. Cultural Resources
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
NI. The project site is vacant and contains no structures; therefore, there would be no impact
to above - ground historic resources.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources?
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
LS/M. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and /or
paleontological resources on the site. This would be a potentially significant impact. The
following measure is recommended to reduce this impact to a less- than- signif cant level:
Mitigation Measure 11. If historic, archeological, paleontological or Native
American materials or artifacts are identified during project construction, work
within a 50 -foot radius of such find on the project shall cease and the City of
Dublin and /or Contra Costa County shall retain the services of a qualified
archeologist and /or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If such
find is determined to be significant by the archeologist, a resource protection plan
conforming to CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5 shall be is prepared by the a
qualified archeologist and /or paleontologist and approved by the City of Dublin
and /or Contra Costa County, as appropriate. The plan may include but would not
be limited to removal of resources or similar actions. project work may be
resumed in compliance with such plan. If human remains are encountered, the
Contra Costa County Coroner shall be contacted immediately and the provisions
of State law carried out.
d) Disturb any human resources?
LS/M. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre - historic human resources could be
uncovered on the site during construction activities, which would be potentially significant.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 11 would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
6. Geology and Soils
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including
loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground
failure or landslides?
LS/M. Although the parcel analyzed in this document would not contain occupied structures or
other facilities that would be in general public use, proposed grading would support dwelling
foundations constructed to the south within Dublin Ranch West. Typical site soils encountered
on the project parcel consist of alluvial and colluvial deposits. Landslides on the larger Dublin
Ranch West project area were found on the westerly side of the Dublin Ranch West site and
along the banks of Tassajara Creek. No historic landslides were identified on the 11.6 -acre parcel
within Contra Costa County, although landslides are mapped immediately north of the project
site, based on Berlogar's Summary Update Geotechnical Investigation of the Dublin Ranch West
Project (October 2001).
Although the Bay Area lies within a seismically active area, there are no known active faults
within the Project area or adjacent, based on the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the Updated
Summary Geotechnical Report prepared for the Dublin Ranch West site in October 2001.
Although the anticipated risk of ground rupture is considered low due to lack of an active fault,
there is a possibility that seismically induced ground shaking could include slope failure that
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
could damage dwellings to the south. This would be a potentially significant impact. Similarly,
the proposed slopes to be constructed on the project parcel could be subject to slope failure
during non - seismic events, which would also be a potentially significant impact.
This impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level through adherence to the following
measure.
Mitigation Measure 12. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project
parcel, the applicant shall submit a soils and geotechnical report by a qualified
geologist or equivalent. The report shall analyze existing soil conditions, the
proposed grading plan and shall include specific recommendations to reduce the
risk of slope failure and mudflow during seismic and non - seismic events to an
acceptable level of risk, as determined by the City of Dublin or Contra Costa
County, as appropriate.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and /or the loss of topsoil?
LS/M. Proposed grading on the project parcel could result in substantial erosion especially
during and after grading operations, when unprotected slope areas could erode into adjacent
bodies of water, including but not limited to Tassajara Creek, to the east. This would be a
potentially significant impact but would be reduced to a less - than - significant level by adherence
to Mitigation Measure 12.
c, d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS/M. Project area soils could contain expansive soils that could result in slope failure,
liquefaction or other soil hazards, which would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 12, which requires a detailed site - specific soils analysis and
recommendations to reduce soil hazards to an acceptable level of risk, would reduce impacts
related to expansive or unstable soils to a less - than - significant level.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on -site septic tanks if sewers are not
available?
NI. No structures are proposed within the project parcel, therefore, no impact is anticipated
with regard to septic tanks.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Project Impacts
a, b) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or
emission of hazardous materials?
NI. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the approximately 11 -acre site
in Contra Costa by Eckland Consulting Inc. in June of 2006. Copies of this report are available
for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
The report concludes that no historically recognized environmental condition or recognized
environmental condition exists on this site. This conclusion is based on a review of previous site
uses, a records search with the Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the Contra Costa County
Hazardous Materials Program and recognized hazardous materials databases. There would
therefore be no impact regarding the potential to create a significant hazard through transport or
release of hazardous materials.
c, d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?
NI. The project parcel is not listed as a hazardous materials site by the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) as of February 27, 2006. Therefore, no impact would result.
e) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip?
NI. The project area is located outside of the referral area for Livermore Airport, based on
Figure 3.I /D of the Eastern Dublin EIR. No impact would result.
f) Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within two miles of a private airstrip?
NI. The project site is not located within two miles of a private airstrip as shown in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. No impact would result.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. The proposed project would include construction of an emergency vehicle access road
through the site that would facilitate egress from the westerly portion of the Dublin Ranch West
area. This would will ensure that impacts related to emergency evacuation plans would be less -
than- significant.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
NI. The proposed project would not involve the construction of structures so it would not
expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards. The project area would also be planted with
native plant material for erosion control that would limit fire risk. No impact would therefore
result with regard to wildland fire.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
LS/M. The proposed project would include grading of existing slopes to support approved
development on the Dublin Ranch West. Grading activities on the project site could result in
water borne soil erosion into adjacent creeks and streams that would exceed San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board surface water quality standards. This would be a
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
significant impact. Adherence to the following measure would mitigate this impact to a less -
than- significant level:
Mitigation Measure 13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Project
parcel, the applicant shall submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for the site showing construction and post- construction methods that
will be implemented to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board surface water
standards. The Plan shall include methods to prevent soil erosion during
construction as well as long -term methods to protect surface waters. The SWPPP
shall be approved by the Dublin Public Works Director or the Contra Costa
County Public Works Department, as appropriate.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater table?
NI. The proposed Project does not include construction of any land uses that would require
use of groundwater resources or would lower the existing groundwater table. No impact would
therefore occur.
C) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur?
LS/M. The proposed project would include grading of the site to support development of the
approved Dublin Ranch West project immediately to the south and minor redirection of existing
drainage patterns would occur. However, the general direction of site drainage would continue to
be to the north and northeast. Soil erosion and siltation off of the site could be a significant
impact and this impact would be reduced to a less - than - significant level through adherence to
Mitigation Measure 13.
d) Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the
project site?
LS. The proposed project would modify existing drainage patterns to a limited extent,
although storm water runoff would continue to flow in a general northward direction. The
anticipated increase in the amount of stormwater runoff would be limited since only a small
amount of impervious surface would be created, which would be an emergency vehicle access
roadway. This would be a less - than - significant impact.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runoff?
LS/M. Since only a limited amount of impervious surface would be created as part of the
Project, an EVA roadway, there would be a small increase in the amount of surface water leaving
the site under storm conditions. This would be less - than - significant. Surface water pollution
from the site would be potentially significant and would be reduced to a less - than - significant
level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 13.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
LS/M. Construction of the proposed project could contribute to water quality degradation
through erosion of soil from the site into adjacent bodies of water, such as Tassajara Creek. This
would be a significant impact and would be reduced to a less- than - significant level through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 13.
g, i) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to flooding or failure of a
levee or dam?
NI. The proposed project does not include construction of any dwellings that would be within
a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact would result.
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood
flow?
NI. The proposed project does not include construction of any dwellings that would be within
a 100 -year flood hazard area. No impact would result.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows?
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or tsunami.
The risk of potential mudflow will be addressed in the site - specific soils and geotechnical
analysis. A less - than - significant impact is anticipated.
9. Land Use and Planning
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community?
NI. The project involves only one parcel, which is adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West project
site. The Project parcel is also vacant and would not divide an established community. No impact
would therefore result.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation?
NI. The project site is planned and zoned for agricultural uses by Contra Costa County.
Proposed land use would consist of a roadway and a potential bioswale, both which would be
consistent with the general plan land use designation and zoning so no impact would result
regarding conflicts with land use policies, plans or regulations.
C) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
NI. There is currently no Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation
Plan on the Project site, so no impact would result, As part of the proposed project, the applicant
would include the project parcel within a Conservation Easement to ensure that no future
development would occur on the site.
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
10. Mineral Resources
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources?
NI. There are no known significant mineral resources located within the project area.
Annexation and development of the project as proposed would have no impact on mineral
resources.
11. Noise
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, d) Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to substantial temporary
or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
LS/M. Grading activities on the project site could subject surrounding rural residential dwellings
to noise generated by earthmoving equipment, including bulldozers, compactors, dump trucks
and similar equipment. Construction noise would exceed local exterior noise exposure standards
adopted by both the City of Dublin and Contra Costa County and would be a significant impact.
The Eastern Dublin EIR requires all developers in the Eastern Dublin area to prepare
Construction Noise Management Programs to minimize noise impacts to adjacent residents. The
developer of Dublin Ranch West is required to prepare such a plan and have it approved by the
City of Dublin prior to grading operations. Since the project site is not located in the Eastern
Dublin planning area, preparation of such a Program is not required. However, the following
measure is recommended to mitigate construction noise on the project parcel to a less -than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 14. Grading and construction activities on the project parcel
shall be included in the Dublin Ranch West Construction Noise Management
Plan.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
LS. Proposed construction activities on the project site would occur prior to occupancy of
residences within the Dublin Ranch West project area, so that no residents of the area south of
the Project site would be subject to groundborne vibration or noise. Few other rural residents are
located near the project area that would be affected by the proposed Project. Overall, impacts
related to groundborne vibration and noise would be less - than - significant.
C) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
NI. No residences or other uses or structures would be located on the project that would
generate substantial noise levels. There would be occasional use of the Emergency Vehicle
Access roadway by fire and police equipment that could be using sirens, but this would be very
infrequent. There would be no impact regarding substantial permanent increases in noise levels.
e, f) Expose people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or in the vicinity
of a private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NI. There are no public or private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no
impact would result.
12. Population and Housing
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
NI. The proposed project would allow for adjunct grading to support the approved Dublin
Ranch West project in the City of Dublin. Uses and activities allowed do not include residences
so there would be no impact with regard to this topic.
b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or
people?
NI. The project parcel is vacant and no impact would occur.
13. Public Services
Project Impacts
a, b) Fire and police protection?
NI. One of the purposes of the proposed project is to provide an Emergency Vehicle Access
for the Alameda County Fire Department, Dublin Police Services and other agencies and
organizations that need access to the northerly portion of the approved Dublin Ranch West
development. No other development would occur on the project parcel, so there would be no
impact of the proposal on police or fire services.
C) Schools?
NI. Since the proposed project would not include any residents, there would be no impact on
schools.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
NI. All project facilities would be private, so there would be no governmental agency that
would provide maintenance services. No impacts would therefore result regarding maintenance
of public facilities.
14. Recreation
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks?
NI. The proposed project would not result in the construction of residences that would
generate the need for additional neighborhood or regional parks. No impact would therefore
result.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities?
NI. No recreational facilities are currently planned on the project site since no residences are
proposed. No impacts would therefore result. The East Bay Regional Park District may construct
a portion of a regional trail through this project parcel; however, no right -of -way has been
selected for this trail and construction of the trail would be subject to future CEQA review at the
time such a project may be proposed.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Project Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity?
NI. The proposed project does not include any residences or other uses that would contribute
long -term traffic to local streets or roadways. No impact would result for this topic.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LDS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads?
NI. Since no traffic would be generated by the proposed project for any local roadway, no
CMA standard would be exceeded and no impact would result.
C) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. Development of the Project parcel is not expected to create a change in air traffic
patterns at the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
NI. There would be no traffic that would use the emergency roadway on the Project parcel,
only emergency vehicles, so no impact would result.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
NI. The Project would increase the availability of emergency access for the adjacent Dublin
Ranch West project, so no impact would result.
f) Inadequate parking capacity?
NI. Since no habitable uses would be constructed for the proposed Project, there would be no
need for on -site parking. No impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation?
NI. Since the proposed Project does not include buildings or any other uses that would be
open to the general public, no impact would result with regard to alternative transportation
policies.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB?
NI. The proposed Project would not result in the construction of habitable structures that
would generate wastewater, so no impact would result.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
NI. Since no construction of habitable structures is proposed as part of this Project, no water
or wastewater facilities are required and no impact would result.
C) Require new storm drainage facilities?
NI. The proposed project would include new drainage facilities, including a possible
bioswale to accommodate stormwater runoff. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
n
LS. A limited amount of water would be required to support the proposed project. This would
be for short-term irrigation of vegetation planting and would represent a less - than - significant
impact. Since no habitable structures would be built as part of the project, there would be no
requirement for a permanent, long -term water supply.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?
Citv of Dublin Page 39
lnitiai Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
NI. No wastewater would be generated from the proposed Project since there would be no
habitable structures built. No impact would result.
f) Solid waste disposal?
NI. There would be no impact with regard to solid waste disposal, since none of the uses
proposed as part of the Project would generate solid waste material.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
NI. There would be no impact with regard to compliance with statutes and regulations
regarding solid waste since no solid waste material would be generated as part of the proposed
Project.
h) Gas and electricity?
NI. The proposed Project does not include uses that require the extension of natural gas or
electrical service, no impact would result.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of 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?
No. Although the proposed project could have an impact on special- status wildlife
species, adherence to the mitigation measures included in this Initial Study will reduce
such impacts to a less- than - significant level. Please refer to the discussion in the
Biological Resources section above.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of possible future projects.)
No. The proposed project would include minor improvements on an 11.6 -acre parcel
within Contra Costa County to support a previously approved residential development
project in the City of Dublin. No habitable structures would be constructed as part of the
project and a majority of the project site would be placed in a conservation easement to
preclude further development.
C) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
No. The proposed project includes minor improvements on an 11.6 -acre site that, based
on the foregoing analysis in this Initial Study, would not result in any effects that would
result in substantial adverse effects to humans, ether directly or indirectly.
Initial Study Preparer
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
References
Dublin Ranch West California Tiger Salamander Survey and Salvage Report Winter
2003/04, H. T. Harvey Associates, August 2004
Dublin Ranch San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey, H.T. Harvey & Associates, October 1997
Dublin Ranch West Rare Plant Survey, H. T. Harvey Associates, September 2003
Dublin Ranch West Biological Resources Report in Support of an Initial Study, H.T.
Harvey Associates, October 2002
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998
Phase One Environmental Site Assessment for MacKay & Somps Wallis Ranch 13
acres, Contra Costa County, Eckland Consultants, Inc., June 2006
Update Summary report, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Dublin Ranch West
Tassajara Road, Alameda County California, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, October
2001
Wallis Property Alameda /Contra Costa Counties Identification of Waters of the U.S, H.T.
Harvey Associates, May 2000
Persons /Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document
City of Dublin, Public Works Department
City of Dublin, Planning Department
MacKay and Somps
City of Dublin ' Page 41
Initial Study /DRW /CC County Parcel September 2006
California regional Water Quality Control Board
Cz-�'Vj San Francisco Bay Region
J
Linda S. Adams 1515 Clay Sheet, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612 Arnold Schwarzenegger
Secrctary -for (510) 622 -2300 • Fax (510) 622 -2460 Governor
- onmewal Protection http:// www. waterboards .ca.gov /sanfranciscobay
October 13, 2006
File No. 2198.09 (BKW)
Michael Porto, Project Planner RECEIVED
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza $ 2006
Dublin, CA 94568
®19131..IN PLAN14rN
Re: Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH Number: 2003022082
Dear Mr. Porto:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have reviewed the September
2006, Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for PA
05 -051, Dublin Ranch West Project (known as Wallis Ranch), Contra Costa County. The
project includes an 11.6 -acre parcel in Contra Costa County that is immediately north of
the Dublin Ranch West Project. This parcel will be regraded for an Emergency Vehicle
Access and potential bioswale. Water Board staff have the following comment on
Mitigation Measure 3 of the MND.
Comment 1 - Mitigation Measure 3
This mitigation measure states:
To compensate for loss of CTS aestivation habitat, the project proponent shall
acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CTS aestivation habitat at a 1:1 ratio
adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding and aestivation habitat and construct a
breeding pond, or as required by the USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation aestivation
habitat shall be located in the City of Dublin or Livermore Valley area as close as is
practicable, and as approved by the USFWS or CDFG and shall exhibit similar
characteristics to the habitat lost.
The 2004 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report and the
2004 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report contained
similar mitigation requirements. However, the project proponent has recently proposed
providing mitigation outside of the Livermore Valley. This proposal implies that there
may be a lack of suitable mitigation opportunities in the Livermore Valley. Before
certifying the MND, the Lead Agency should verify that Mitigation Measure 3 can be
implemented as proposed. This verification would preferably include providing the
precise location of the proposed mitigation site.
Identifying the proposed mitigation site in the MND would also be more consistent with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Proposed
mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a CEQA
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years Exhibit B
01 Recycled Paper
t`
Mr. Porto - 2 - MND, Dublin Ranch West, Dublin
document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts
to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures to be identified at some future time are
not acceptable. It has been determined by court ruling that such mitigation measures
would be improperly exempted from the process of public and governmental scrutiny
which is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the
identification of a mitigation site at this time would significantly improve the MND, as
well as resolving the concerns raised by the currently proposed mitigation for the Dublin
Ranch West Project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622 -5680 or by e -mail at
bwines(a >waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Brian Wines
Water Resources Control Engineer
cc State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044
USACE, San Francisco District, Attn: Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, San
Francisco; CA 94105 —2197
CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Robert FIoerke, Regional Manager, P.O. Box
47, Yountville CA 94599
CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Janice Gan, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA
94599
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Chris Nagano, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W -2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825 -1846
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento
Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Kim Squires, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W -2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825 -1846
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years
af),ded Paper
December 13, 2006
City of Dublin
Dublin Ranch West - Wallis Ranch /Contra Costa County Parcel
Response to Environmental Comments
Introduction
The City of Dublin issued a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project on September
20, 2006, to ensure California Environmental Quality Act compliance. The proposed
project includes grading on a parcel of land within Contra Costa County immediately
north of the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch project west of Tassajara Road and
immediately north of the Dublin/Contra Costa County boundary line. The project would
also allow for a construction of an Emergency Vehicle Access, herpetological exclusion
fencing and potential bio -swale on this 11.6 -acre site.
The Negative Declaration was published and circulated for a 30 -day review ending on
October 19, 2006.
One comment letter was received and is attached. The comment letter is from the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, dated
October 13, 2006.
Following is a response to the comment letter.
Comment: Board staff is concerned that the location of compensatory off -site land for
replacement of California Tiger Salamander (CTS) is located outside of the Livermore
Valley. Mitigation Measure 3, as contained in the project Initial Study, states that the
location of replacement habitat land should be located within the City of Dublin or the
Livermore Valley area, as practicable, and must be approved by the Department of Fish
and Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The Regional Board requests the Lead Agency verify the location of the replacement
habitat site required by Mitigation Measure 3 to ensure it can be implemented as
proposed and that the mitigation is consistent with CEQA.
Response: Refer to the attached letter from the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch project
sponsor, Martin Inderbitzen, dated November 14, 2006,which identifies the precise
location and size of the replacement habitat land to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff.
The Inderbitzen letter notes that an agreement has been reached between the Lin family
and the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank located in Alameda County for sufficient
credits to off -set the impacts of the Dublin Ranch West /Wallis Ranch project, including
City of Dublin ,'Page 2
Response to Comments
Dublin Ranch West - Wallis Ranch /Contra Costa County Parcel
January 2007
the Contra Costa County parcel. Based on this letter, the City of Dublin believes this
mitigation can and will be fulfilled.
Attachments:
1) California Regional Water Quality Control Board comment letter
2) Inderbitzen Letter to USFWS