HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Attch 1 - Reso CC Adopt CEQA Addendm to Final EIR for EDub GP Amndmt etc
RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE 1993
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN, THE 2002 EAST DUBLIN PROPERTY OWNERS
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 2005 FALLON VILLAGE
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE ANDERSON
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
(APNS 905-0001-006)
PA 07-037
WHEREAS, the City adopted the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on
January 7, 1994. Both plans have been amended a number of times sin<e that date, to provide a comprehensive
planning framework for future development of the eastern Dublin area In connection with this approval, the
City certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15168 (SCH No. 91103064) that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by
reference. The Program EIR was integral to the planning process and examined the direct and indirect effects,
cumulative impacts, broad policy alternatives, and area-wide mitigation measures for development within
eastern Dublin; and
WHEREAS, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), requested annexation and prezoning of the
EDPO Annexation Area, which includes the Anderson property, into the City of Dublin. In connection with the
annexation and prezoning request the City Council certified a Supplenental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by
Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division cLnd is incorporated herein by reference.
In connection with the 2002 Project approval, the City Council adopted supplemental mitigation measures,
mitigation findings, a statement of oveni.ding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring program. All adopted
supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the Anderson pro~ ect area; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the current Applicant, Braddock and Logan, on behalf of the Eastern Dublin
Property Owners (EDPO), requested a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned
Development (PD) Rezone with a Stage 1 Development Plan, and reorganization of an area of approximately
1,134-acres known as Fallon Village which includes the Anderson property. In connection with this request, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 on December 6, 2005, certifying a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR for the Fallon Village
Project area which is available for review in the Community Development Department and is herein
incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) Study to modify the land use designation of the 7-acre
residential portion of the Anderson property from Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/acre) to Medium-
High Density Residential (14.1-25 du/ac); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Jeff Lawrence, on behalf of Bradjock & Logan Services, submitted an
application in 2007 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage 1 Development Plan, and Stage 2
ATTACHMENT 1
Development Plan, and Site Development Review to construct a 108-unit multi-family Project on the 7-acre
residential portion of the Anderson property located at 3457 Croak Road. These applications are collectively
referred to as the project or proposed project. The application also requested a Development Agreement and
Affordable Housing Agreement. These applications are collectively referred to as the project or proposed
project; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project exceeds the number of uni:s and density of what was previously
studied for the Anderson property. Based on the project's current G~neral Plan and Specific Plan land use
designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac) and on the prior EIRs, the project site is currently
approved for 70 units. The applicant wishes to construct 108 residential units requiring a General Plan and
Specific Plan land use designation of Medium High Density Residential <14.1-25.0 du/ac); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study dated January 2008, and included as Exhibit B to this resolution, was
prepared to determine if additional environmental review was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the potentially significant effects ofthe project were
adequately addressed in the previous Program EIR and both SEIRs. The project remains subject to all
previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the project and pro.iect site; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for this project, as no ~;ubstantial changes have been proposed
to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major revisions to the
previous EIRs. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. The project remains subject to all previously
adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, dated February 12, 2008,
incorporated herein by reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, was prepared which identifies the
project changes and their relationship to the analysis in the Program EIR and both SEIRs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2008, at
which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the draft addendum, the 1993 Program
EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendmelt, the 2002 SEIR for the East Dublin
Property Owners and the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR prior to making a recJmmendation on the project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 12, 2008, was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the Project applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did use its independent judgment and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a
part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
Addendum dated February 12, 2008 and the Initial Study dated January 2008, together with the 1993 Program
EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Pl.1n, the 2002 SEIR for the East Dublin
Property Owners and the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR (which are available for review during normal business
hours and on file in the Community Deyelopment Department).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commis5ion recommends that the City Council
adopt the CEQA Addendum, including the related Initial Study, attached as Exhibits A and B, to the 1993
Program EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR for the Anderson project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2008.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Manager
G:IPA#\2007107-037 Anderson GPA SPA PD SDRIPlanning CommissionlPC Reso CEQA Addendum.DOC
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY
PA 07-037
February 12, 2008
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolutic,n No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified FIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993,
assessing a reduced development and project alternative. The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced
area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22,1994, the City Council adopted a second
Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR
evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Elstern Dublin over a 20 to 30
year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed,
relying to various degrees 011 the first-tier certified EIR.
A Supplemental EIR was prepared for the 1, l20-acre Fallon Village portion of the Eastern
Dublin planning area in 2002 to assess the impacts of adopting a Stage 1 Development Plan
and annexing these properties to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services
District (DSRSD) (SCH # 2(01052114). The SEIR was certified on April 2, 2002 by City
Council Resolution No. 40-02.
A second Supplemental EIR was prepared in 2005 to analyze a General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan amendment, a revised Stage I and Stage 2 Development Plan for the
northerly portion of the Fallon Village area and to update the previously approved Stage 1
Development Plan for the southerly portion of the Fallon Village area. The second SEIR
(SCH #2(05062010) was certified on December 5, 2005 by City Council Resolution No. 222-
05. The 2005 project included 1,132 acres of land, slightly larger than was analyzed in 2002.
This was due to a lot line adjustment to include additional prc'perty into this project
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidel ines Section 15164 for the
Anderson Property portion of the Fallon Village, as described below.
Project Description and Prior Approvals
The City of Dublin approved development of the 1, l20-acre Fallon Village portion of Eastern
Dublin in 2002. The approvals included a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, PD-
Planned Development prezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan, annexation to the City and
DSRSD and detachment from the Livermore Area Parks and~ecreation District. As part of
this project, up to 70 dwellings were allowed on the northerly 7-acre portion of the 49-acre
Anderson Property. The 2002 SEIR analyzed this action.
.... ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit A I 0 .
In 2005, a second SEIR was certified by the City of Dublin t(l analyze a General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendment, , a revised Stage 1 Development Plan for the
northerly portion of the Fallon Village area and a Stage 2 De'lelopment Plan for the Positano
development on the northerly 470 acres of the Fallon Village area.
The current application includes amendments to the Dublin Ceneral Plan, the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, the current Planned Development zoning, and the current Stage 1 Development
Plan for the northerly 7-acre portion of the Anderson Propert:1 within the overall Fallon
Village area to allow an increase of 38 dwellings on the site, from 70 dwellings to 108
dwellings.. Applications have also been filed with the City for a Stage 2 Development Plan,
Site Development Review, a subdivision map and related actions The proposed Project also
includes consideration of a conceptual grading plan for the remaining 42 acres of the
Anderson Property.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the
subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of
future urban development planned for a then-largely undeveloped area east of the then-
existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts we,-e identified and numerous
mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation
measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site
continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated
herein by reference.
2002 Supplemental EIR. In 2001, the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (ED PO) requested
annexation, pre-zoning and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area, including the
Anderson Property. The Project Area was within the development area previously approved by
the City in 1993; and was within the scope of the project/program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. In response to EDPO and consistent with the City's pracice for projects in Eastern Dublin,
in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the annexation and pre-zoning requests
would require additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the proposed
annexation and pre-zoning were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was
predictable given the comprehensive planning for the development area; the Eastern Dublin
ElR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations and policies; the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan, East
Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses; the fad that annexation and pre-zoning
actions were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin::IR; and the fact that the
annexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project Area in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. Although the 2001 Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately
analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed annexation and rezoning,
it also identified the potential for some new significant impacls or substantially intensified
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential
Page 2
new and/or substantially intensified impacts required reviewlt an EIR level and concluded that a
Supplemental EIR should be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR was
updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation Supplemental ErR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental EIR,
referred to in the attached Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR," rrovided updated analyses of
agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and utilities. In
certifying the 2002 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City Council, through Resolution No.
40-02, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative air quality and
,cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate. The 2002 SEIR is hereby incorporated into this Ac dendum by reference.
2005 Supplemental EIR. In 2005, a second Supplemental EJR (identified as the "2005
Supplement" in the attached Initial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for
the Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR (see City
Council Resolution No. 222-05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed information for
the proposed development areas, and as well as several changes in circumstances since the prior
EIRs which could have affected the impacts and/or mitigations previously identified for the
Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the previously analyzed project and circumstances
included, but were not limited to: 1) continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond
with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air
quality and noise within or on the Project area; 2) changes in the provision and distribution of
some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wa~;tewater, and storm drainage), 3)
changes in circulation patterns on the Fallon Village site; 4) completion of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village site and
additional site-specific biological and cultural resources studi ~s which did not previously exist;
5) changes in the development density and intensity in the Fa Ion Village Project area that may
increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6) submittal of Stage 2 Development
Plans, subdivision maps and other permit applications contair ing detailed development plans for
the northern portion of Fallon Village known as Positano not previously reviewed at a project
level.
Similar to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a
Program-level document that focused on the new or substanti;llly increased significant impacts of
potential future development pursuant to the proposed Generc I Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments. Additionally, the 2005 Supplemental EIR
reviewed proposed individual development projects, the envilOnmental impacts they would
generate, and the avoidance and mitigation measures they wo lId employ at a Project-level. The
2002 SEIR is incorporated herein by reference
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the
appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the
City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR and the previous Supplemental EIRs to determine if
any further environmental review was required for the proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin
Page 3
Specific Plan Amendment, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Planned Devdopment rezonings and
associated applications.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated January 25, 2008, and incorporated herein
by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determi1ed that no subsequent EIR, or
negative declaration is required for this Project.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring :;ubsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or
negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, the 2002 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR The Project propo,es an increase in the number of
dwellings assumed in the prior EIRs; however, the increa:;e is offset by a reduction in the
number of dwellings developed on the Positano site by th ~ same applicant. As further
demonstrated in the Initial Study, the increased number of dwellings is not a substantial
change and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. The conceptual
grading plan shown on the southerly portion of the propelty is anticipated for future
development under the existing approvals, including the existing PD-Stage 1 Development
Plan. Any proposed grading must be consistent with the (~xisting approvals as well as the
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and all applicable adopted mitigation
measures. ,
1. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin SpecifiC Plan Amendment
proposes to redesignate land slated for Medium Density Residential which allows
residential land use at a density between 6.1 to 14.0 d1vellings per acre, to
Medium High Density Residential. The requested land use category allows
residential development at a density range between 14.1 to 25.0 dwellings per
acre. The PD-Stage I Development Plan proposes an increase of 38 dwellings on
the 7-acre site, from 70 to 108 dwellings, resulting in ;l density of 15.4 dwellings
per acre. This, in turn, would permit construction of a significant number of
income restricted dwellings on the site consistent with the City's Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts? There are no sub,tantial changes in the conditions
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR. This is documented
in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated January 25, 2008.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous E/R that shoyJs the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or pr,?vious effects are more severe;
or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now fea.lible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous
Page 4
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, no new or different mitigation
measures are required. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the
Project
d) If no subsequent ElR-level review is required, should a sL'bsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond
those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous SEIRs.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated January 25, 2008. The Addendum and Initial Study review
the proposed redesignation of land uses as discussed above. Through the adoption of this
Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land
uses do not require a subseq uent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162.
The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR
adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior environnental documents before making
a decision on this project
The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR and all resolutions cited
above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal
business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic
Plaza, Dublin CA.
Page 5
Initial Study
Project:
Anderson Property Project
City File No. PA 07-037
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
January 2008
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit B to
Table of Contents
Introduction..................................................................., ..........................................2
Prior Environmental Impact Reports........................... ..........................................2
Applicant/ Contact Person............................................, .......................................... 4
Project Description..................................................... .... .......................................... 4
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..... ............... .......... .... ........ ..............23
Determination......................................................................................................... 24
Evaluation of Enviromnental Impacts. ................ ......... .... ................... ....... ..........25
Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................... 26
Discusson of Checklist........................................................................................... 36
1. Aesthetics............................................................................ ......................... 36
2. Agricultural Resources ...............................................................................40
3. Air Quality............. .................. .................................................................... 41
4. Biological Resources ..... ..................... ................. ........... .............................44
5. Cultural Resources. ... .... ......... ............ ................. .......... ........................... ...49
6. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 51
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...........................................................54
8. Hydrology and Water Quality.. ....... ........ ..................................................56
9. Land Use and Planning .............................................................................. 60
10. Mineral Resources..................................................................................... 61
11. Noise.......................................................................................................... 61
12. Population and Housing..................................................................... ..... 66
13. Public Services........................................................................................... 67
14. Recreation.................................................................................................. 69
15. Transportation/ Traffic............................................................................. 71
16. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................76
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................79
Initial Study Preparers ................... ....................................... ....................... .......... 81
Agencies and Organizations Consulted............................................................... 81
References ....... ... ..... ..... ......... ...... ............. ............ ... ............ ........................ .... ........81
Appendix................................................................................................................. 83
INITIAL STUDY
Anderson Property/Fallon Village Area
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code SS 21000 et seq., ) and the CEQA
Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, SS 15000-15387). This Initial Study updates the
assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the East Dublin "Program" (i.e.,
the applicable goals, policies, programs, diagrams and 3.ction items of the Dublin
General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Planned Development Zoning),
relating to the Anderson Property ("Project Site.")
This Initial Study assesses program changes and development-level activities to
implement that Program through Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, a development
agreement, a housing agreement, and related development permits, all of which are
described below in the Project Description. These entitl ~ments are referred to herein as
the "Project."
Prior Environmental Impact Reports
This Initial Study consists of a completed environmentd checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. A considerable
amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in eastern
Dublin. A Program Environmental Impact Report was certified through Resolution No.
51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amend:nent and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064; ("Eastern Dublin EIR"
or "EDEIR"), That 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 ~;eismicity; Biological Resources;
Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As
part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan through Resolution No. 53-93, the City Council ad')pted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space
land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain communi!:;r facilities (natural gas, electric
and telephone service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in
energy uses through increased water treatment and disJosal and through operation of
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 2
January 2008
the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population, earthquake ground shaking, loss of degradation of botanically sensitive
habitat, regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in
court and was found to be legally adequate.
In 2001, the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (ED PO) requested annexation, pre-zoning
and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area, including the Anderson Property.
The Project Area was within the development area previously approved by the City in
1993; and was within the scope of the project/program analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. In response to EDPO and consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern
Dublin, in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the annexation and
pre-zoning requests would require additional environmental review beyond that set
forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that many of the
anticipated impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning were adequately
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given the comprehensive
planning for the development area; the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under
the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and
policies; the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan, East Dublin Specific
Plan and Eastern Dublin ElR analyses; the fact that annexation and pre-zoning actions
were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and the fact that the
annexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project Area in the
Eastern Dublin ElR. Although the 2001 Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin
EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
annexation and rezoning, it also identified the potential for some new significant
impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential new and/ or substantially intensified
impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a Supplemental EIR should
be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin ElR was updated and
supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental ElR,
referred to in this Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR," provided updated analyses of
agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, schools, and
utilities. In certifying the 2002 SElR and approving the prezoning, the City Council,
through Resolution No. 40-02, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for
curnulative air quality and cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR was challenged in
court and was found to be legally adequate.
In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR (identified as the "2005 Supplement" in this Initial
Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the Fallon Village project,
which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR (see City Council Resolution No.
222-05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed information for the proposed
development areas, and as well as several changes in circumstances since the prior EIRs
which could have affected the impacts and/ or mitigations previously identified for the
Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the previously analyzed project and
circumstances included, but were not limited to: 1) continued development in the Tri-
Valley area and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic
intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise within or on the Project area; 2)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 3
January 2008
changes in the provision and distribution of some public services (schools) and public
utilities (water, wastewater, and storm drainage), 3) changes in circulation patterns on
the Fallon Village site; 4) completion of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for
biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village i;ite and additional site-specific
biological and cultural resources studies which did not previously exist; 5) changes in
the development density and intensity in the Fallon Village Project area that may
increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6) submittal of Stage 2
Development Plans, subdivision maps and other permit applications containing
detailed development plans for the northern portion of Fallon Village known as
Positano not previously reviewed at a project level.
Similar to the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a
Program-level document that focused on the new or substantially increased significant
impacts of potential future development pursuant to tl1e proposed General Plan,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments.
Additionally, the 2005 Supplemental EIR reviewed pro:)osed individual development
projects, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance and
mitigation measures they would employ at a Project-le'Tel.
Mitigation Measures contained in the three previous Environmental Impact Reports
applicable to the Anderson Property will be applied to the current Project.
This Initial Study has been prepared to address requested land use changes for a
portion of the Anderson Property within the Fallon Village site as described more fully
below. This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is
required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances
and prior ErRs referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for
review by the public during normal business hours at be Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
Applicant/Contact Person
Braddock and Logan Services, Inc.,
Ath1: Mr. Jeff Lawrence
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201
Danville, CA 94506
Phone: (925) 736-4000
FAX: (925) 648-5700
Project Description
Project location and context.
The Project includes proposed land use entitlements for an approximately 7-acre Site on
the Anderson Property located in Eastern Dublin, California, Exhibit 1 shows the
Project Site location in Eastern Dublin. The site is bounded on the west by Croak Road,
on the north by property owned by the Croak family, 01 the east by property owned by
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 4
January 2008
the Righetti partners and on the south by property also owned by the Anderson family.
A portion of the Project also includes consideration of a conceptual grading plan for the
remainder of the approximately 42 acres of land that constitutes the Anderson Property.
Access to the Site is provided by Croak Road, which, in turn, intersects with Fallon
Road, a major arterial roadway in the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. Regional access to
the Site is provided by Interstate 580 to the south which has an interchange with Fallon
Road.
Exhibit 2 shows the Anderson Property in context with other surrounding properties
and features.
The Project Site is currently vacant and contains a closed quarry, which is proposed to
be filled as part of this Project as well as an older single family dwelling and associated
outbuildings, all abandoned. Surrounding land uses include ranches and agricultural
operations, or are vacant. Ponds are located within portions of the closed quarry area on
the Site.
Site topography includes gentle to steeply rolling hills, with some slopes exceeding 30
percent, which are located on the northeasterly portion of the Site. The lowest
topographic elevation is approximately 415 feet above sea level, with the highest
elevation being approximately 515 feet. A portion of the site contains a former quarry
that fills with water during winter months. A number of native and non-native
significant stands of trees are present on the property.
Project background and prior planning approvals
The Anderson Property is located in the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)
area. Previous City of Dublin land use approvals regarding the Project site include:
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
(EDGP A) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The approved project was a
modified version of the original EDGP A for the 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning
area. The original EDGP A proposed to change commercial land use designations on
County property in the southwest portion of the GP A area and agriculture/ open space
designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time,
a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres wi thin the larger 6,920-acre EDGP A. The EDSP
supplements the EDGP A with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs
and regulations.
The original EDGP A land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGP A planning area was
projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres
designated for Rural Residential with a 100-acre minimum parcel size. Approxirnately
10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571 acres of
designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. Buildout was expected
to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 5
January 2008
The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGP A planning area.
Seventy percent of the EDGP A residential development and 94% of the new commercial
space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land 11se plan called for compact
villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating
commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was based on the original 6,92(I-acre planning area and land use
designations, and 3,328 acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. As required by
CEQA, the EIR also identified project alternatives, including a Reduced Planning Area
(RPA) alternative, which the City Council adopted in a modified form in 1993.
The adopted modified RPA alternative reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, provided
for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGP A area only within the
Dublin Sphere of Influence.
2002 Prezoning and Annexation. In 2002, an application was filed with the City by a
number of owners in the Eastern Dublin area to annex lhe area to the City and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District area (DSRSD). ApFlications were also filed for
prezoning to the PD-Planned Development Zoning District and a related Stage 1
Development Plan to guide future development of the Fallon Village area. The
annexation and prezoning were approved. These actiors all included the Anderson
Property .
As required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the 2002 prezoning included a Stage 1
Development Plan. The 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan covered the entire Fallon
Village Project area and reflects the general land use types, densities and locations
established in the 1993 Eastern Dublin project approval:;. At the time of annexation, the
residential land use intensity was established by using the mid-point of the allowable
density ranges. Retail, industrial and office land use inb~nsity was established by
defined floor area ratio. In approving the 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan, the City
further established maximum development intensities by property. The Stage 1
Development Plan also included a master landscape plan and development phasing
plan.
Resource Management Plan. In 2003, the City retained c. team of consultants to prepare
a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Project area. The RMP implements
mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 adopted with the 2002 annexation and prezoning
approvals. The purpose of the RMP was to address impacts to biological resources in a
coordinated manner across the entire Fallon Village Project area. The effort included
conducting necessary biological analyses and developirg necessary protection and/ or
management methods. The RMP was accepted by the Cublin City Council in September
2004 and was used as one of the key documents in formulating the amended 2005 Stage
1 Development Plan.
2005 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. These amendments
proposed to include all of the Fallon Village Project arec into the Eastern Dublin Specific
City of Dublin8Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 6
January 2008
Plan. Also proposed was a Planned Development Rezoning amending the then-existing
Stage 1 Development Plan to modify overall land use patterns within the Fallon Village
area and adopting a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Development Agreement and
Subdivision Map for the approximately 486 acres in the northerly portion of the Fallon
Village area. The 2005 Project also included Williamson Act Contract cancellation for
certain properties.
The 2005 GP A, SPA, and Stage 1 PD Rezoning designated the 7-acre Project Site as
Medium Density Residential, which allows residential development within a range of
6.1-14.0 dwellings per acre.
Anderson Property Parcel Map. On July 17, 2007, the City of Dublin approved a
tentative parcel map for the 48.9-Anderson Property. The parcel map subdivided the
Anderson Property into five smaller parcels of land. The current proposal is located on
the northerly 7-acre parcel on the overall Anderson Property as shown on Exhibit 3.
Project Characteristics
Overview
The application includes a request to the City of Dublin to amend the General Plan,
amend the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, amend the approved Stage 1 Development
Plan and adopt a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review (SDR) for
the development on the northerly 7 acres of the Anderson Property within the Fallon
Village area of Eastern Dublin. A conceptual grading plan has also been submitted for
the southerly 42-acre portion of the Anderson Property.
General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. The applicant
has requested that the City of Dublin amend the current General Plan and Specific Plan
land use designation on the 7-acre site from Medium Density Residential, which allows
residential land use at a density between 6.1 to 14.0 dwellings per acre, to Medium High
Density Residential. The requested land use category allows residential development at
a density range between 14.1 to 25.0 dwellings per acre. Approval of this request would
allow implementation of the requested Project, which would have a density of 15.4
dwellings per acre.
Exhibit 4 shows the existing and proposed General Plan and Specific Plan land use
designations.
Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan for this Project
includes construction of 108 attached aparbnent dwellings on the site with 88 of these
units being classed as "affordable" under the City of Dublin's definition. The
development would consist of ten buildings, each containing nine to twelve aparbnent
units along with a centrally located community building that would contain a leasing
office, fitness room and a pool! recreation area, and two storage buildings.
Two buildings would be sited along the westerly edge of the site paralleling Croak
Road at the top of a proposed slope bank. The formal building edge would continue
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 7
January 2008
along the southerly boundary of the site (Monterosso Avenue). Other buildings would
be located in the central and northerly portions of the Site.
Exhibit 5 depicts the proposed Site Plan for the Stage 1 Development Plan.
The proposed Project is located easterly across Croak Road from a planned Village
Center as part of the larger Fallon Village project. The ~tage 1 and 2 portions of the
Project would be among the first of the residential deVElopments proposed in the
southerly portion of Fallon Village and would assist in providing a permanent
population base for anticipated commercial and other llses envisioned in this portion of
Dublin.
Table 1, below, summarizes the proposed Stage 1 Deve.opment Plan land use
designations and compares this with the existing Stage 1 Development Plan land use
designations for the Project Site.
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Stage 1 Development Plan
Proposed Stage 1 Development Plan Existing Stage 1
Develooment Plan
Land Use Gross Net Ac. No. of Gross Net Gross No. of Gross
Desig- Ac. Dwellings Density Density Ac. Dwellings Density
nation
Med.
Density -- -- -- -- -- 7.0 70 10
Res.
Med-High
Density 7.0 6.9 108 15.4 15.7 -- -- --
Residential
Total 7.0 6.9 108 15.4 15.7 7.0 70 10
Source: Project Applicant, 2007
As shown in the above table, the application would increase the number of dwellings
on the site from 70 to 108, which requires approval of the requested land use
entitlements.
Stage 2 Development Plan & Site Development Review. The proposed Stage 1
Development Plan and the Project details are included in the Stage 2 and Site
Development Review applications. The following is a description of proposed Project
details.
Building Designs. Preliminary exterior building elevations have been submitted as part
of this application and are shown on Exhibit.6. Buildings would contain three stories
with a contemporary design. Buildings would have an l~xterior stucco finish with
concrete tile roofing that would have a slate appearancE.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 8
January 2008
Buildings would be approximately 36 feet tall to the main roof structure with a tower
feature that would have a height of approximately 42 feet. The community building
would have a height of approximately 18 feet.
Access and Circulation. The proposed Development Plan includes maintaining access
to and from 1-580 via Croak Road, which, in turn, connects with Fallon Road that
provides access to 580. Croak Road would be upgraded and improved from current
conditions, Monterosso A venue is proposed as an east-west roadway that forms the
southern boundary of the Project site. Monterosso Avenue is proposed to intersect with
Croak Road and would also be extended easterly to serve the Righetti and Branaugh
properties as these properties are developed at some point in the future.
Internal circulation would be provided from a looping driveway with perpendicular
parking that would encircle three buildings and the proposed community building.
Sidewalks are proposed along Monterosso Avenue and Croak Road to facilitate
pedestrian access to the planned Village Center to the west.
Parking. The proposed development would include 219 on-site parking spaces, 108 of
which would be located within carport structures with the remainder uncovered. The
total number of spaces includes three spaces dedicated to the leasing office.
Utility Services: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide domestic
and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treabnent and disposal services.
The Project Site has been annexed into DSRSD as part of previous actions relative to
Fallon Village (formerly EDPO) and such services are planned to the Project Site in
accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
The Project Developer will be required to install local water lines as well as paying fees
to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treabnent plant. Sewer lines
are all proposed to be gravity flow.
When available, recycled water would be provided to the Project Site for use in
irrigation of common open space areas and other areas. This would reduce the need for
potable water for the proposed Project.
Storm drainage would be accommodated by developer-constructed major backbone
drainage facilities and local facilities. Backbone facilities are proposed to include larger
diameter underground pipes networked throughout the site. These collector pipes
would connect to open channels or box culverts that would direct stormwater flows to
the existing G3 box culvert located in Planning Area H in the Dublin Ranch area just
west of Fallon Road. Local drainage facilities would consist of smaller diameter pipes
connecting to the larger regional system.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 9
January 2008
Water Quality Protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management
Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin.
Project Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the 7-acre development portion of the
Anderson Property as part of the Stage 1 & 2 Development Plan. A conceptual grading
plan has also been submitted for the remainder of the rroperty. The southerly portion
of the Anderson Property (the non-Stage 1 portion) is not proposed for development at
this time.
Grading activities are proposed to occur within the 7-acre development area to
accommodate the planned land uses, roads and utilitie~;. The majority of the grading
would be filling in an existing quarry that is surrounde j predominantly by near vertical
hillside slopes. The fill would create an approximately ~5-acre relatively flat pad. The flat
pad would create a terrace for development with 2:1 slopes down to the roads on the
west and south edges of the development area. Slopes on the north and east edges will
be graded at 2:1 slopes, grading in a manner that would allow a smooth transition into
the adjacent properties. The new slope contours are pre posed to tie into the existing
contours along all property lines. The disturbed areas would be hydroseeded and
planted to control erosion and match pre-grading condtions. Slope stability would be
ensured by implementing engineered fills and cuts as sJecified in the Project
geotechnical engineer's recommendations.
Grading activities are also planned to occur on the remainder of the Anderson Property
in addition to the 7-acre Site. Proposed grading would accommodate planned land uses,
roads and utilities pursuant to the EDSP. The overall g~ading concept is to excavate dirt
from the center of the property and moving it north and south where fill is required. An
former quarry at the north portion of the Site requires fill to create a flat pad for
development. Along the southern edge of the property fill is required to create a flat
development pad that sits at an elevation slightly higher than Interstate 580 to allow
proper gradients for utilities to gravity flow to existing ::::::ity drainage facilities.
Some hillside grading is proposed along the northeastern edge of the property, where
slopes are proposed to transition smoothly with adjacent properties. Additionally,
minimal grading would occur on the knoll located on the western edge of the property
to accommodate the widening of Croak Road, consisted with the EDSP, and to create a
smooth transition from the development pad into the Open Space Knoll. The disturbed
areas would be hydroseeded and planted to control erosion and match pre-grading
conditions. Slope stability would be ensured by implementing engineered fills and cuts
based on the Project geoteclmical engineer's recommendations.
Proposed contours along the northern edge of the over"ll Anderson Property tie
into the existing contours at the property line. Slopes are proposed at a 2:1 ratio
along the eastern edge to daylight with the existing ground on the adjacent
property to the east, the Righetti Property. Along the southern edge of the
Anderson Property, proposed contours would slope at a 2:1 ratio to meet existing
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 10
January 2008
the existing grade at the Cal Trans property line. Proposed contours along the
match the proposed contours for Croak Road improvements.
Proposed grading activities are proposed to extend on small portions of the adjacent
Righetti property to the east in order to ensure that proper gradients are maintained
between the two properties. Necessary easements will be obtained with the owners of
the Righetti property prior to commencement of grading.
Grading on the remainder of the Anderson Property (the non-Stage 1 & 2 portions) are
considered conceptual as of the preparation of this Initial Study and it is anticipated
that changes may be made to the grading plan in the future depending on actual
development proposals on the southerly portion of the Property and to ensure
consistency with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures.
Exhibit 7 shows the proposed grading for the 7 -acre Stage 1 & 2 portions of the
Anderson Property and Exhibit 8 depicts conceptual grading for the southerly 42 acres
of the property that is not included in the Stage 1 & 2 area.
On-site Trees. A number of native and non-native trees are present on the 49-acre site.
As part of the application, the Project Developer has cornmitted to undertake a tree
survey of areas to be graded and to replace trees qualifying as Heritage Trees under the
City's Heritage Tree Ordinance, and to replace loss of heritage trees at a loss of three
trees replaced for each tree to be removed.
Hazardous Materials Remediation. The Project application includes completion of lead-
based paint and asbestos surveys of on-site structures prior to issuance of a demolition
plan by the City of Dublin and remediation of any hazardous materials that may be
encountered. The applicant proposes to obtain necessary permits frorn appropriate
agencies prior to any remediation that may be needed.
Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Dublin's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68)
requires that 12.5 percent of the number of dwelling units in each development project
be reserved for occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households. This
requirement can be met by construction of the specified number of dwellings, payment
of in-lieu fees to the City for up to 5% of the requirement, dedicating land for
construction of future housing projects, rehabilitating existing qualifying units, or any
combination thereof, or by alternative methods approved by the City Council.
The applicant proposes a total of 88 affordable dwellings with the proposed Project.
Consistent with City Council direction on October 18, 2005, 78 would be constructed on
the Anderson Project Site that would satisfy inclusionary housing requirement for a
portion of the Positano project located in the northern portion of Fallon Village. The
remaining ten affordable dwellings would satisfy theinclusionary housing requirement
for the subject project on the Anderson property itself.
Phasing. Proposed improvements for the Stage 1 & 2 portion of the Property would be
completed in a single phase. Grading of the southerly area would occur at a later date.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 11
January 2008
Public Art. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the
project developer will install public art on the Site. Prellminarily, the artwork would be
located near the community building in the approxima:e center of the complex.
Development Agreement. A Development Agreement is proposed to be executed
between the City of Dublin and the applicant, pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
Affordable Housing Agreement. This agreement wouk specify the location, timing of
construction and security necessary to ensure that affordable dwellings are constructed
on a portion of the Anderson Property. Construction of these units are need to satisfy a
portion of the affordable housing obligation for the Positano development (i.e. 78
dwellings), as well as the obligation for the Anderson Property itself.
Requested land use entitlements
The following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of
the proposed Project:
. General Plan Amendment, to modify the General Plan land use designation from
Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential for the 7-acre
portion of the Property.
· Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the same reason as above.
. PD Rezoning / Amendment to the existing Stage 1 Development Plan and
adoption of a Stage 2 Development Plan.
. Site Design Review, Development Agreement ard a Housing Agreement for the
7 -acre site
· A conceptual grading plan for the southerly 42 a:res of the Property.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 12
January 2008
Pacific Ocean
! 10 Miles
I
o
I
I
(
\
\
\
\ '",
.'"
""'-.
"
" ....,
\.9alifornia\
---.... ;
-\ .J
\_--
EXHIBIT I-SITE LoeA TION
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
12-07-2007 13:21:27 ocrobtree
IDACKAY'SlmPS
OItH:t:lIS P\JIIlO(:~ 5IJ'M1OlI5
PlU6oWlOll.CA 1'~ll2'.t-Q(,to
-----
---
:\'i
"CO\l\" ---
(~~
~~"cP
-------
---
---
PROJECT
SITE
..------------
---
----
---
~ ~
:i!
:i! DUBLIN ~
~
~ ~
:> GLEAsoN
8 DRf'i'P
CENTRAL
PARKWAY
DUBLIN
BOULEVARD
1-5110
#l {f ~'" J
~~ &J <;1 ,,<l.:i '"
"r ",.f-
a""
'"
PLEAS ANTON
O-e.'>
-e.~~~
oO~
COLLIER CAN 'ON ~
1-580
o
~~
....l
'"
.
NORTH
NTS
EXHIBIT 2-SITE CONTEXT
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
12-07-2007
13:22:59
ocroblree P:\ 19313\plonninq\lnitioIS\udv\EXH2-SilE Conlext.dw
BlACKlY&: somps
~ I'L.N*,(IlS SUIM'OI!S
Pl~IOll,tA (9~tl~-D690
FIR5T AMERICAN TITLE
-1-
rl,/
_ _ _ _ A!!~o:.J _ !,co~ect;on
---------
ULTlWo1[. e/L OF
J..... CRON< RQ!l) 1<<11I
........ (R=5QO'
~;........----
J..... ........ __ ~ /JO,:::".--
-- __ __ -"'Il"Y<U0
--
RIGHETTI PARTNERS. LP
OOCJ< 1992-075343
APN 905 -000 I -005 -02
CHENG. CHEN Ix CHEN
DOC> 1998-265414
DocH 1995- 223918
APN 985-0027-002
--
--+--.
THE ANDE
FAMILY LIMIT
DoeR 2
DOCI 2
DOCI 9 396153
APN 905- 0 1-006-03
APN 985 27 -005
:"
Pl1TvRr DUBLIN ~0UI.rv-:..-
~ __ an.u
----+--
PARCBL .(.
12.17i AC.
I
I
I
.1
~I
::1
I
I
I
I
I
10' EXI5rn~PU:
402.40' 407,28'
"'JYt b.88' iH:it ~'~I'i~"/~,,~
~
N
PARCEL 5
10.924:1: AC.
w
.~
'"
~
Nol'i4'29'W("R)
INTERSTATE J-JIGHWA Y 1-580
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT 3-TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
.
NORTH
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
O'
I
200' 400'
800'
SCALE: '"=400'
12-07-2007
13:39: 10
oero btree P:
rovedPorcelMo .dw
mACKAY l somps
[POCIIIS PlAHIoVIS SllII'l'{YO"S
P\.u.~.(;.l. 19J~):m..(l6llO
L
...._....'_.... -'...'-
.
, ,
,
.
,
,
,
M ' ;
7.0:f:AC.' '.'
;
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE
Use
M Medium Density
Residential
Gross Acrea e Gross Densi
7.0 ac. 10 du/ac
Umts/SF
70 du
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE
Use
Medium High
,M Density Residentill 7.0 ac.
Units/SF
15.4 du/ac 108 du
EXHIBIT 4-EXISTINGAND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN &
EASTERN l)UBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LANI) USE DESIGNATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
*
NORTH
NTS
12 -() 7 - 2007 1.3:45:08 ocrobtree F:\ 1 9.31.3\plonninq\ InitiolSludy\ EXH4 -GF' -SP- LondUse,dw
IllACKAY &: somps
[1lQI((1lS IUlHII5 SUM'ltlIl'S
P\.LASIHl(J(, U. (l1~) )1$.061lO
I
r-..-..----.----
, A
-- -- -I
, ,Ii.
i ,Ii
,
I
;g
:;;-
U1 hJO
"'oz
~ei:S
1;;"'0
~i;~
"'~
>:w
w>
"ow
Q~~
"'::>::>
8-
"
UNIT SUMMARY
@
@
Size of Unit
(Sq. Ft.)
984 SF
Total Number
ofUnits
36
LAND USE SUMMARY
984 SF
Land Use Designation Gross Net Number Gross Net
Acres Acres of Units Density Density
72 Medium Higb Denisty 7.0 6.9 108 du 15.4 dulac. 15.7 dulac.
Residential
72
108
PHASING
The Anderson Property will be developed in one phase.
@
1820 sf
400 sf
2220 sf
EXHIBIT 5-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN
*
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
NOATH
O'
50' 100' 200'
12-07-2007
13:51 :14
ocroblree
P:\ 19313\plonning\lnilioISludy\EXH5-PD2-DevelopPlon.dwg
SCALE: 1" = 1 00'
mACICAY &: som,s
[IO€[~ PlNHll!o ~
l'L~lJl.Ci II1)} 11>-0610
REAR BUILDING ELEV AT:ON
FRONT BUILDING ELEV A TrON
SIDE BUILDING ELEVATIONS
EXHIBIT 6 .. PROPOSE]) EXTERIOR ELEV1\ TIONS
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
12-07 -- 2007 13:56:' 8 ocroblree P:\ 19313\plonning\lnitioISludy\EXH6-ExleriorElevolion.dwg
mAclCAl' somps
[1G((Jri PlJ.IIlOS ~l()ff5.
ptIA~Ok.toI. (n~11n-009D
-_.~
'"
;;;
~
""
'"
a
"
M
'"
-<
-<
APA UNE
------
EXHIBIT 7 - PROPOSED GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN
CITY OF DUBLIN
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INITIAL STUDY
12-07-2007
.
NORTH
O'
I
75' 150'
300'
SCALE: 1" = 150'
13:57:55
ocrobtree P:\, 9313\plonning\lnitioISludy\EXH7-GrodingUtilityPlon.dwg
mACK'll' Somps
11l&f<((!tS ~IIS ~1OII'S
P\(J.S.\I(IOIl.CA {9n!21)-Dlito
EXHIBIT 8 - PROPOSED ANDERSON SITE GRADING
CITY OF DUBLIN *
ANDERSON PROPERTY
INlTIAL STUDY
:sT
:z: ....,
lei "-
15 ~ I
<=11
<,
~I
~,
~i
ui
~x:I.'.":.1
Wi 'Ii
i i i!
., '"
I-DAYLIGHT
------
------
I
=---_ __ ~_ _ _'~5~__
---
0'
I
200'
NORTH
400'
800'
SCALE: 1" =400'
mlCKAY & Som,s
P:\ 19313\plonning\lnitioIStudy\EXH8-SileGrodingPlon,dwg :'~o. JVIlll[lS Iml~=
12-20-2007 07:44:.35 jferrel
1. Project description
The applicant requests approval of
amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, a Stage 1 & Stage 2 PD
rezoning and Site Development review to
allow the development of 108 dwellings on the
7-acre site. The number of dwellings includes
88 dwellings that would be restricted for
occupancy for households of very low, low and
moderate income as defined by the City of
Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Regulations
(Chapter 8.68). The Project also includes site
grading and extension of utilities to the Site.
Grading of the non-Stage 1 & 2 portions of the
Property is also proposed.
2. Lead agency:
Ci ty of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person:
Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Deparbnent
(925) 8336610
4. Project location:
East of Croak Road and north of the 1-580
freeway
5. Project contact person:
Braddock and Logan Services, Inc,
(Attn: Mr. Jeff Lawrence)
4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201
Danville, CA 94506
(925) 736-4000
6. Existing General Plan
Land Use Designation
Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ ac)
7. Proposed General Plan
Land Use Designation
Medium High Density Residential (14.1-25.0
du/ ac),
8. Proposed Rezoning:
PD-Medium High Density Residential,
9. Other public agency necessary and/or desired approvals:
o Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and
Building Permits (Dublin)
o Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
City of Dublin
Initial StudylAnderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 21
January 2008
o Encroachment permits (Dublin)
o Notice of Intent (Water Resources
Control Board)
o 404 Permits (US Army Corps of
Engineers)
o Streambed Alt2ration Permit (California
Department of Fish and Game)
o Permits from ~'an Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
o Permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 22
January 2008
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may 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
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Geology / Soils
Cultural Resources
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology /Water
Quality
Land Use/
Planning
Population/
Housing
Mineral Resources
Noise
Public Services
Transportation/
Recreation
Circulation
Utilities/ Service
Systems
Mandatory Findings
of Significance
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 23
January 2008
Determina tion
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed Project could not have a si~;nificant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that the proposed Project could not have a si~;nificant effect on the
environment and a Addendum will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed Project could hav,~ 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 hm'e been added to the
Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant
effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, 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 the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A
focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: s required, but it must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
-.1L I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect ir this case because all
potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed acequately in an earlier ErR
pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier E1R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin
Environmental Impact Report, the 2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact
report and the2005 Supplemental Eastern Dublin EnvLronmental Impact
Report will be prepared.
Signature:
Date:
Printed Name:
For:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 24
January 2008
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact"
answers are supported by the information sources the 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), or, in this case, there is no
impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered
previously in the 1993 ElR, and/ or the 2002 SEIR, and/ or the 2005 SEIR,
and/ or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
by the City Council at the time the 1993 EIR and/ or the 2002 SEIR was
certified. 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. It 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
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 25
January 2008
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.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2,6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 1,6)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps 'prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,3,4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 6,7)
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: 2,3,6)
3. 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) Confl ict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2,3,4)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 26
January 2008
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?
(2,3,4)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 6,7)
4. 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: 2,3,4,7)
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: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3,4,7)
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: 2,3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2,3,4)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 27
January 2008
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: 1,3,4)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. l5064.5? (Source: 2,4,6)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,4,6)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,4,6)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2)
6. 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 Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2,
5,7)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 6)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2,6)
iv) Landslides? (2,5)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2,6)
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-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2, 6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
l8-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2, 6)
Potentiall) Less Than Less than No
Significan' Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 28
January 2008
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1,2)
7. 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: 2, 4, 7)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 2,4, 7)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2,4,7)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 7)
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 of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2,4)
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: 2,4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Source: 2,4)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 29
January 2008
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: 1,2,7)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2,4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
intelfere 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? (2,4)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
sUlface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 4,7)
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: 6)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 4)
g) Place housing within a I GO-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2,7)
Potentiall:' Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 30
January 2008
h) Place within a IOO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2,7)
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? (2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: I, 2, 4)
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: I,
2,4)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1,2,4)
10. 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: I,
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)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 4,5)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (5)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti!!ation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 31
January 2008
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (5)
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
airp0l1, would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessi ve noise
levels? (2,4)
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: 2,4)
12. 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: 2, 7)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (6,7)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6,7)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result ill substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities. the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other pelformance objectives
for any of the public seryices? (Sources: 2)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentiall:; Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 32
January 2008
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2,4)
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: 2,4)
15. 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)? (4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (4)
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?
(4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (48)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(4)
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 33
January 2008
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2,4)
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?
(2,6)
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? (4,7
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (3)
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? (4)
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)
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, substantially 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?
Potentiall.l Less Than Less than No
Significan t Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 34
January 2008
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).
Potentially Less Than Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Miti!!ation
X
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR
3. 2002 Supplemental EIR
4. 2005 Supplemental EIR
5. Project Acoustic Report (2007)
6. Site Visit
7. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
The following Environmental Impact Reports have been used in the preparation
of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Deparbnent, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business
hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study.
· Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064)
· Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 2002 and Final
SEIR (March 2002) (SCH #2001052114)
· Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental Impact Report, August 2005
and Final SEIR (Date)(SCH #2005062010)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 35
January 2008
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The Project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern DU:Jlin that is transitioning to
urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993.
The Project Site is characterized by moderate to steep sl::lping open space areas and a
former quarry on the east side of the Site. A number of native and non-native trees are
located on the Site and no major rock outcroppings found on the Site.
With the exception of one single-family dwelling and a~;sociated outbuildings, the
Anderson Property is undeveloped and contains hillside terrain, with steeper slopes
located in the northeasterly portion of the Site.
Nearby scenic highways include the 1-580 freeway and Tassajara Road to the west. The
Anderson Site has limited visibitility from 1-580 from the south, with direct views
blocked by hills located directly south of the Site, locate:! between the Anderson Site
and the freeway. Due to the elevations of intervening properties, the Anderson Site is
not visible from Tassajara Road. Also, the Anderson Project Site is not identified as a
"Visually Sensitive Ridgeline-Restricted Development" as depicted on Figure 3.8-H
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The nearest Visually Sensitive Ridgeline is located
immediately south of the Anderson Project Site.
Surrounding properties consist of similar uses, including moderate to steeply sloping
areas to the north, east and west sloping to the south, towards the 1-580 Freeway. There
are no public parks, trails; public vistas or other public gathering places on the Site.
As a largely rural, undeveloped area, minimal light sources exist on the Project Site.
Regulatory framework and Previous EIRs
Dublin General Plan.. The Project Site is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 in Section 2.1.4 of the General Plan states that
"proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further,
Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development project:; to be consistent with all
applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies."
Eastern. Dublin. Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres ofland in
the eastern Dublin area.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 36
January 2008
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
. Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (1M 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
. Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (1M
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, 1M 3.8/B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
· Mi tigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural
features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (1M 3.8/C) but
not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
· Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (1M 3.8/D) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
· Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (1M 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit
development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would
extend above a ridge top.
· Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 711 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/1)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map view sheds.
Neither the 2002 nor the 2005 Supplemental EIRs identified additional visual impacts or
mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 37
January 2008
Many of the mitigation measures are also EDSP policies and programs. The 2005 SEIR
contains an extensive listing of EDSP policies related to visual resources in the Fallon
Village Project area (DElR pp. 196-197). The Anderson Project Site is undeveloped and
contains hillside terrain, with steeper slopes located in the northeasterly portion of the
Site. The Anderson Site has limited visibitility from 1-580 from the south, with direct
views blocked by hills located directly south of the south, located between the
Anderson Site and the freeway.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted
scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin arEa, known as the Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document idEntifies the Site as lying within
Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined primarily by
lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should bE park, rural residential, open
slopes or riparian drainage areas.
Policy 11 states that development should "celebrate opE~n space, with distant views as
well as with foreground view and right-of-way landscaping."
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to all applicable mitigation measures
from previous EIRs and other land use regulations dealing with aesthetics, visual
conditions and light and glare.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. Approval and
implementation of the proposed Project would rl~su1t in no impacts regarding
scenic vistas, since no such areas exist on the Site. Approval and implementation
of the Project would create a public gathering place in the approximate center of
the Site, so that residents and visitors would have an opportunity to take
advantage of views of nearby and distant hillsides. No new impacts regarding
substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas havE' been identified with regard to
the proposed Project that have not been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or
other SEIRs.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic
highway? LS. The proposed Project would includ,~ grading of the northerly 7-acre
portion of the Anderson Property to create flat building pads, parking areas,
recreation facilities, roads and similar areas, all of which would change the visual
character of the Project Site. Such grading has be~n anticipated in the Eastern
Dublin EIR as well as the two subsequent SEIRs and the proposed Anderson
Project will be required to adhere to existing Mitgation Measures (identified in
the Regulatory Framework section, above) to reduce potential damage to scenic
resources to a less-than-significant level. The majority of proposed buildings on the
Anderson Site would be blocked from the south JY the existing hill immediately
south of the Anderson Site, although some of the roof peaks my be visible from
motorists using 1-580. No development would occur on any visually sensitive
ridge tops as defined in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 38
January 2008
Motorists using 1-580 would see proposed regrading of the higher elevations of
the 7-acre Anderson Site. Graded areas would be revegetated as required by
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 to ensure that graded areas
would blend in with existing natural slopes.
The southerly portion of the Anderson Property would also be graded to
accommodate planned development as envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Proposed grading would occur in accordance with the Mitigation Measures
included in the Eastern Dublin EIR, including but not limited to incorporating
sensitive engineering design of graded areas using gradual transitions from
natural to graded areas (Mitigation Measure 3.8/4.0) and recontouring proposed
slope areas to match existing natural hillside contours (Mitigation Measure
3.8/4.4). Prior to issuance of a grading plan by the City of Dublin for the
southerly portion of the Property, the City will ensure that all applicable EIR
mitigation measures, EDSP policies and scenic guidelines are met.
These impacts have been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (e.g. Eastern
Dublin EIR 1M 3.8 B and D) and 2005 SEIR.
All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and visual
policies contained in the EDSP would apply to this Project. No supplemental
impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 2005 SEIR related to visual
impacts. The proposed density increase as part of the proposed Project does not
substantially change any previous analyses. The additionally proposed dwelling
units can be accommodated in the less visually sensitive areas of the Site,
consistent with EDSP policies, previous mitigation measures, and Eastern Dublin
Scenic policies. The proposed height of buildings at 36 feet in the Stage 1 & 2
portion of the Property, are typical of heights for similar development in Eastern
Dublin.
The Project would result in no supplemental impacts regarding scenic resources.
The Project has no frontage along Tassajara Road, the nearest County and City-
designated scenic highway, which is approximately one mile west of the
Anderson Property. No impacts would therefore result with regard to damages to
scenic resources along scenic highways.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. The
proposed Project includes approving and implementing development-level land
use entitlements on the Project Site. Aesthetic impacts would include disturbance
of existing vegetation, paving of undeveloped land to create project roadways
and grading of the Site to create development areas. In addition to the 7-acre
proposed development site, the southerly portion of the Anderson Property
would also be graded. The Eastern Dublin ErR addressed the following potential
impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of implementing the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 39
January 2008
Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following measure to mitigate this impact
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the Project site
which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..." However, the
EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and
open space in the Project area would remain a potentially significant impact.
A potential visual impact would be grading and recontouring of the overall
Anderson Property, which would be required to facilitate the proposed
development. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses this potential through Impact
3.8/B and includes mitigation to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed Project includes residential land u :;e, as assumed in prior EIRs. The
proposed Development Plan shows the dwellings can be accommodated
consistent with adopted mitigation measures and EDSP policies. No new or more
severe impacts have been identified in this Initia. Study.
Although Heritage Trees would be lost as a result of grading on the site, the
applicant has proposed that any Heritage Trees that would be lost will be
replaced at a ratio of consistent with the Ordinarce. A number of other
ornamental trees are proposed to be planted as Fart of the 7-acre Stage 1 & 2
development.
d) Create light or glare? LS. The Project Site contains minimal light sources and
construction of the proposed project would add .:l.dditionallight sources in the
form of streetlights along Croak Road and Monterosso Avenue as well as new
housing and yard lights. Typical of this area, properties adjacent to the Project
Site are primarily undeveloped with few light sources. The potential effect of
increased light and glare was analyzed in the Iniial Studies for the 2002 SEIR (p.
77) and the 2005 SEIR. These analyses concluded that no significant light and
glare impacts would result from development of the EDSP in the Fallon Village
area. City development requirements to restrict Epillover of unwanted light will
apply to this proposed project. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified
associated with this Project and light and glare impacts associated with this
Project would be less-than-significant.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project Site as "lands of
locally important farmlands." Portions of the Anderson Property have been historically
used for livestock grazing purposes.
No Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements have been recorded on the Project
Site based on information contained in the 2005 SEIR (s'~e 2005 SEIR Figure 3.11.)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 40
January 2008
Regulatory framework
Eastern Dublin General Plan. Implementing Policy C.3 in Section 2.1.4 for the Eastern
Extended PI am-ling Area requires a determination that "timing of development will not
result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands."
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related
to agricultural resources. Impact 3.1/ C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses
would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin and the
Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local
Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan.
This was also noted as an insignificant impact.
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of fannland to a non-agricultural use? NI. The easterly portion of
the Project Site was previously used as an aggregate quarry and the westerly
portion continues to be used for cattle grazing. The Eastern Dublin ElR, the 2002
SEIR and 2005 SElR do not identify the northerly portion of the Anderson
property as prime agricultural land. Therefore, approval and implementation of
the proposed Project would have no impact with regard to conversion of prime
farmland to a non-agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI.
The proposed project would result not in urbanization of any existing
agricultural zoning, would not conflict with a Williamson Act Agreement, since
none exist on the Property, and would not conflict with the existing PD-Planned
Development zoning on the site. Therefore, no impacts would result with regard
to these topics.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The Project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin
is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
Previ ous ElRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 41
January 2008
. Mitigation Measures 3.11 1 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (1M 3.11/B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact,emained significant and
unavoidable.
. Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG
and NOx (1M 3.11/ C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures.
Many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, 1M 3.11/C remained significant and unavoidable.
. Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (1M 3.11 II:) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations re=Iuire reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
Chapter 3.2 of the 2002 SEIR updated the Eastern Dublin EIR air quality analysis to
reflect unanticipated increases in regional traffic and more stringent air quality analysis
adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District since 1993. Under changed
conditions and implementing Eastern Dublin EIR rnitigations, mobile source emission,
other than carbon monoxide emissions, continued to be significant and unavoidable.
The 2005 SEIR contains the following supplemental air=Iuality mitigation measures.
. Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1, for construc1ion impacts, requires individual
project developers to adhere to a number of dust reduction measures during
construction, including watering or covering of stockpiled material, sweeping of
streets and driveways and installation of erosion control measures.
. Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-2, relating to iLcreases of ozone precursors,
requires individual project developers to undertake a number of measure to
reduce auto traffic, including but not limited to coordination of public transit
providers and others. Even with Eastern Dublin ErR measures and supplemental
mitigation measures, this impact remained significant and unavoidable.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to air quality.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementa,'ion of an air quality plan? LS. The
Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regading increased stationary source
air emissions from the project area that would remain significant even with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The prior EIR also
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 42
January 2008
assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley,
and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative air quality
impact 1M 3.11/C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these
two impacts.
The 2002 SEIR identified Supplemental Impact AQ 1 (mobile source emissions) as
a significant and unavoidable impact and AQ 2 (Carbon Monoxide mobile source
emissions) as a less-than-significant impact.
The 2005 SEIR identified Supplemental Impact AQ-2 (regional air emissions
exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) clean air
standards) and Supplemental Impact AQ-3 (Project contribution to regional air
quality) as significant and unavoidable impacts, even after mitigation.
The BAAQMD Clean Air Plan is based on population and growth assumptions
projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). For the proposed
Anderson Project, the applicant is requesting an increase in the number of
dwellings on the Site, from 70 to 108 dwellings. As noted in the Population section
of this Initial Study (see Section 10), the Positano residential development north of
the Anderson Site, within the Fallon Village Project area will be developed with a
maximum number of 1,046 dwellings rather than the 1,076 dwellings approved in
the Stage 2 Planned Development zoning and other land use entitlements granted
by the City of Dublin (personal comm. with Jeff Baker, City of Dublin 11/14/07).
Therefore, the total number of dwellings and associated population between the
Anderson Property and the Positano projects would be generally consistent with
the Clean Air Plan and this would not represent a substantial change to the project
analyzed in previous EIRs. No new or more severe impacts would result
regarding this topic.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. The 1993 Eastern Dublin ErR as
well Supplemental EIRs certified by the City in 2002 and 2005, identified violation
of air quality standards as Significant and Unavoidable impacts. The Anderson
Property Project proposes residential development within the Eastern Dublin area
in a manner consistent with the current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
In terms of construction-level air quality impacts, as conditions of grading plan
approval by the City of Dublin, the applicant will be required to have their grading
contractor undertake dust and wind-borne erosion control methods listed in SM-
AQ-1 of the 2005 SEIR, including covering of stockpiled material, watering of
graded sites and similar methods to meet BAAQMD standards.
In terms of operational-level air quality impacts, the BAAQMD has established
thresholds for development projects with the potential for significant air emissions
(see Table 6 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 12/99). Table 3 notes that a
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 43
January 2008
development project would need to contain 510 at more apartment units in order
to have a significant air quality impact. Since the F'roposed Anderson Project
would contain a net increase of 38 apartments, thi:; impact would be less-than-
significant.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable c. ir pollutants? LS. The proposed
Project would add up to 38 apartment dwellings to the total number of dwellings
currently permitted in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Based on the discussion
contained in subsection "b," above, the number of dwellings contained in the
proposed Project would not meet or exceed the threshold of significance, which is
less than 510 apartments, for project or cumulativE~ impacts as established by the
BAAQMD and this would not represent a substantial change from development
assumptions contained in air quality sections in previous EIRs.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concl?ntrations or create objectionable
odors? NI. The proposed Project is a typical residential development project does
not include manufacturing or similar land uses, no objectionable odors would be
created and no impact would result.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
Biotic habitat types
The 2005 SEIR, the most recent environmental document that contains a comprehensive
description of biological conditions on the Anderson Site as well as the remainder of the
larger Fallon Village site, identifies the Project Site as ccntaining two biotic habitats:
Ungrazed Non-Native Grasslands and Ponds (see 2005 SEIR, pages 135 and 138).
The Site is characterized by California arU1ual grassland with dominant plant species
being am1ual grasses, Italian ryegrass, wild barley, salt ,srass, soft chess and wild oats.
Most native annuals are outcompeted by this dense growth and plant diversity is
limited to these introduced, fast-growing species. The r'~sidual dry herbaceous
vegetation in the ungrazed grassland area provides cover for small mammals, reptiles,
and birds and additional seed supply for foraging birdE and mammals.
Ponds comprise approximately 2.5 acres of the overall Fallon Village area. In this initial
study document, the term "pond" refers to all areas of open-water, lentic or slow-
moving lotic habitat, including stock ponds and in-stream pools. One large stock pond
and a second smaller pond occurs in a former quarry on the Anderson parcel. Emergent
aquatic vegetation, including narrow leaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) and tule (Sdrpus
acutus val'. occidentalis), has colonized the periphery of tnese ponds; the proportion of
open aquatic habitat to emergent vegetation varies widdy with both seasonal and
annual fluctuations in water level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 44
January 2008
Special-status species and habitats
The three previous ErRs prepared for the Anderson Property, which include the
surrounding Fallon Village Project and Eastern Dublin area, identify a wide range of
special-status plant and wildlife species. These are identified in Section 3.7 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 3.3 of the 2002 Supplemental EIR and Section 4.7 of the 2005
Supplemental EIR.
A more recent biological assessment prepared for the 49-acre Anderson Property Site by
H.T. Harvey & Associates. This report, dated October 12,2007, is incorporated by
reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department. The Harvey report identifies the potential presence of
California Tiger Salamander, California red-legged frog and San Joaquin kit fox on this
Property .
Previous EIRs
The regulatory framework for this Project includes previous ErRs and regulations for
stream protection.
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
· Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(1M 3.71 A) to a less-than-significant level. These rnitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
· Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (1M 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7 15.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
· Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (1M 3.71 C) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
· Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (1M 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 45
January 2008
· Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (1M 3.71 S) to a less-than-significantlevel. This measure requires
completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin E1R also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and Caifornia horned lizard.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin ElR.
2002 Supplement. This ElR identified a large number of ~;upplemental biological
mitigation measures for the entire Fallon Village project area, identified as
Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-1 through ~;M-BIO-45. The supplemental
rnitigation measures require completion of rare plant and wildlife surveys, preparation
of a Resource Management Plan (RMP), avoid or replace wetlands,
2005 Supplement. This Supplement identifies additional supplemental impacts and
mitigation measures, as follows. A number of the supplemental mitigation measures are
revisions to mitigation measures contained in earlier EBB. Supplemental mitigation
measures are:
· Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 requires the restoration or enhancement of
riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the
proposed aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on-site. If
mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall
mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or
enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (mE~asured by acreage) at an off-site
location acceptable to the City.
· Mitigation Measure SM-B10-2 requires that if avoidance is infeasible, then
mitigation lands providing similar or better habi':at for CRLF shall be preserved
and protected in perpetuity.
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 requires individuClI developers of parcels to create
andlor enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio, in or adjacent to areas
currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to
provide a high likelihood of establishment and p 2rsistence of a breeding
population.
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 requires develope~s of individual parcels to
acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland h3.bitat at a 1:1 ratio in or adjacent
to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding
pond.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 46
January 2008
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-l (revised) requires special steps to be taken by
individual developers if special-status plants cannot be avoided during project
construction.
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (revised) requires that during the breeding season
(February I-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a
particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the
initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG
protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the
number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel.
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (revised) requires pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owls be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground
disturbance between September 1 and January 31.
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (revised) requires that if construction is scheduled
during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1- August 31), pre-
construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site-specific Project area
and within 500 feet of such Project 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.
. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (revised) requires that if destruction of occupied
(breeding or non-breeding season) burrowing owl 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.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous EIRs and the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration
Program.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species?
NL The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species,
seventeen special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten
special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire
Eastern Dublin planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21.) Since
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, new special status species have been
addressed in the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents. No new species have been
identified on the Project Site as part of this Initial Study and no impacts would
result.
As identified in the previous EIRs and in the most recent HT Harvey Report
(10/12/07), approval and implementation of the proposed Project could impact
individual species and habitats for California Tiger Salamander, California red-
legged frog and San Joaquin Kit Fox. These impacts could include but are not
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 47
January 2008
limited to loss of approximately 1.24 acres of bfet~ding habitat on the Project Site
(2005 SEIR, p.179).
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policiE'8 to protect special status
species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). The proposed development project on the
Anderson property will adhere to the Specific Plan policies and all previously
adopted mitigation measures, as applicable. As dentified in the H. T. Harvey
Report, the Project applicant will undertake the following action to ensure that
EDSP policies and ErR mitigation measures will :>e met:
. Off-site mitigation for impacts to special-status species and/ or habitats
will be provided off-site on the Brown Ranch, approximately 3 miles from
the Project Site. Within the Brown Ranch and working with the us. Fish
& Wildlife Service, an approximate 3.72-af:re aquatic habitat and foraging
area will be created.
. A qualified biologist will be present on th,~ Project Site during any activity
that could result in impacts to California Tiger Salamander, California
red-legged frog and/ or kit fox.
. Biologists working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will be given the
authority to monitor and stop any such work.
. Pre-construction surveys will be undertaken for special-status species.
. California tiger salamander and red-legged frogs will be hand-captures on
the Project ~;ite and relocated to the new habitat area.
. Other steps will be taken as detailed in thl~ Harvey Report.
In response to existing biological mitigation meamres and as part of the
Biological Opinion issued by the U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service for the Fallon
Ranch development project just north of the Anderson Project Site (now known
as Positano), the project applicant proposes to provide off-site mitigation at a site
known as the Brown Ranch, located approximately 1.5 miles north of the larger
Fallon Village development project. The Brown Ranch would provide suitable
habitat for California tiger salamanders, kit fox and red-legged frog species.
As identified in previous EIRs for the Eastern D1.:blin area, impacts associated
with loss or degradation of botanically sensitive l.abitats on a Project and
cumulative level (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/ C, and 2002 SEIR Impact BIO 3)
will remain Significant and Unavoidable for this Project as well.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
L5. The 2005 SEIR identifies ponds and potential wetland area on the Anderson
Site. Implementation of the proposed Project would impact these wetland areas,
associated riparian habitat and special-status species within and adjacent to these
wetland area,
Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures, and as detailed in the Biological
Opinion and the H.T. Harvey Report, the applicc:nt for the Anderson Project will
provide suitable off-site wetland habitat and fonging area on the Brown Ranch.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 48
January 2008
The Project applicant will also obtain necessary federal, state and local permits in
order to undertake this mitigation plan.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. Existing special-status
species and their respective habitats on the Project Property will be relocated,
with the permission of applicable biological regulatory agencies, to a suitable
offsite location. Removal of the on-site ponds and associated habitat area would
eliminate localized movement by fish and other wildlife species, consistent with
mitigation measures contained in previous EIRs and the Resource Management
Plan prepared for the Fallon Village area.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The
Project Property contains a number of trees that would be removed when the
property is graded. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the Project
applicant will undertake a preconstruction survey for special-status species as
required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0 to identify any loss
of nesting habitat in on-site trees. The proposed Project would also adhere to the
City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance and replace heritage trees lost at a ratio
consistent with the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the two Supplemental EIRs contain a comprehensive
listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the
overall Eastern Dublin area.
The 7-acre portion of the Anderson Property does not contain any structures, so that no
above ground historic resources are present on the Site. One older single-family
dwelling and associated outbuildings exists on the larger Anderson Property, south of
the Stage 1 application area. None of these structures are identified as historic sites in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (reference Chapter 3.9, Cultural Resources).
Previous EIRs
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation
measure applicable to this Project is:
· Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result
of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These measures
require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden
deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on
State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a
protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA.
City of Dublin
Initial 8tudylAnderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 49
January 2008
. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impactE: related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (lM 3.9B) to a less-than-
significant level.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR sets forth no additional mitigation measures. The 2005
Supplemental EIR contains additional mitigation measures that address properties
other than the Anderson Property within the overall Fa.lon Village project.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource
mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. No historic
resources exist on the Anderson Property based I)n a historic resources survey
conducted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR, so there would no impacts with
regard to historic resources on the site that have not been analyzed in previous
EIRs.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a
remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation. may uncover significant
archeological and/ or paleontological resources en development sites. Mitigation
Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3 9-7) require subsurface testing
for archeological resources if such are found dunng site disturbance; recordation
and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for
resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix K of the CEQA
Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were
adopted to address Eastern Dublin 1M .9/B, the potential disruption of any
previously unidentified pre-historic resources ard would apply to the Project as
may be appropriate. No additional impacts witt regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts are therefore anticipated.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interree' outside of a formal cemetery? LS.
A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-hi:;toric human resources could be
uncovered on the Anderson Property during grading and construction activities.
At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on
unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist
item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K,
Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed human remains, which provisions
now have been incorporated into CEQA Guideli:-tes Section 15064.5 and apply to
the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. No additional
impacts are anticipated with regard to disturban:e of human remains and no
new mitigation measures are required.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 50
January 2008
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR and reviewed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. As a
result of the 2002 review, it was determined that soils, geologic and seismic
conditions did not present any new potentially significant impacts when
compared with the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore not reassessed in detail in
the 2002 SEIR.
The issue of soils and geology was analyzed in the 2005 SEIR based on
recommendations of a soils and geotechnical analysis prepared for the Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan portion of the Fallon Village site, located north of
the Anderson Property site. Supplemental Impact GEO-1 identified the potential
presence of new landslides in the northerly section of the Fallon Village area that
were not analyzed in the 1993 EIR or the 2002 Supplement. Other than
Supplemental Impact GEO-1 no other additional or more severe soil or
geotechnical impacts were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
Topography consists a mix of flatter ground in the southerly and central portions
of the Anderson Property transitioning to steeper slopes in the northeast portion
of the area. Topographic elevations range from 350 to 475 feet above sea level. A
Visually Significant knoll exists in the westerly portion of the Property and a
former quarry site is located in the northeasterly portion of the Property.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General
Plan and EDSP project. These include:
· Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (1M 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
· Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-8.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (1M 3.91 C) to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
· Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (1M 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 51
January 2008
. Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive scils, reducing the arnount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundati.)n and pavement design.
. Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (1M 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal 1 reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
. Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (1M 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associated
cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on-going maintenance of slope drainage are,lS.
. Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.61 K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
. Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedimentation (1M 3.6/L) to a less-than-significa1.t level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
The 2005 SEIR included one additional mitigation measure. Supplemental Mitigation
Measure GEO-1 deals with grading of steeper slopes or properties north of the
Anderson Property and does not apply to this Project.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and
seismic mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic grc'und shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? LS. Although the Project is not locatec within an Earthquake Fault
Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Easterr Dublin EIR identified that the
primary and secondary effects of ground shak.in:~ (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 52
January 2008
could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced to a less-than-
significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in
construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major
structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on
proposed project improvements to a less-than-significant level.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 through 3.6/26.0 by the Project
developer will ensure that effects of landsliding and ground failure on proposed
Project improvements will be less-than-significant.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Construction of
the proposed project improvements on the Anderson Property would modify the
existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and
could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by
grading activities (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6IK). Long-term impacts
could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing
vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). The Project applicant will be
required, as a standard condition of Project approval by the City of Dublin, to
prepare and implement an erosion control plan, consistent with City of Dublin
and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. With implementation of
Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and an erosion control
plan, impacts related to substantial erosion and loss of topsoil would be less-than-
significant.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Project Site are
underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the
potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.6/H). With adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, potential shrink-swell impacts would be less-than-significant.
Consistent with applicable mitigation measures, the Project developer has
retained a qualified soils and geotechnical consultant to prepare a site-specific
analysis of the Anderson Property. Recommendations included in the Project
soils report will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and
will be included in grading and constructions plans and specifications to comply
with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and EDSP policies regarding soil
hazards.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
Proposed residences on the Project Site would be connected to sanitary sewers
provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 53
January 2008
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The 2005 SEIR, prepared for the Fallon Village Project area of which the Anderson
Property site is a component, identified a number of Supplemental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures for individual properties included in the Fallon Village project
area.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2 identified the possibility of soil and/ or groundwater
contamination and the exposure of individuals from release of such materials, including
portions of the Anderson Property. Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 requires
additional subsurface investigations for the southerly portions of the Anderson
Property adjacent to the EBJ property, which is adjacen: to the 1-580 freeway frontage.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for the 7-acre portion of
the Property and no hazardous conditions have been identified. The report is hereby
incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and thE report is available for review at
the Dublin Community Development Department duri:1g normal business hours. An
older single family dwelling and several associated outbuildings exist on the southerly
portion of the Property that could contain asbestos materials and lead-based paints.
Previous EIRs
The 2005 SEIR contains the following supplemental mitigation measures related to
hazards and hazardous materials.
. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-l requires prl~paration of site-specific analysis
to determine the presence of lead based paint and/ or asbestos in structures to be
demolished in the Fallon Village area.
. Supplemental Mitigation HAZ-2 requires the renoval of identified hazardous
conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area pricr to future development on
properties.
. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3a requires Additional research for the
former gas station site north and west of Croak Eoad to obtain information with
regard to operation, demolition, and removal ofne former gasoline service
station. Additionally, a limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted for
the EBJ parcel and adjacent areas of the Anderso::1 and Chen/Tseng properties to
bet~er assess whether impacts to soil and shallow groundwater have resulted
from the former gas station.
. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3f requires that, upon development of each
site in the Fallon Village area, all existing wells shall be abandoned under permit
from Zone 7 Water Agency and in accordance w:th all applicable regulations.
. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3g states that when, or prior to, the existing
structures are demolished in the Fallon Village a~ea, all existing septic systems
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 54
January 2008
and associated leach fields shall be pumped out and removed under permit from
the Alameda County Health Department.
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. There would be no impact with regard to
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project
involves construction of a residential development on the Anderson Property.
There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous
materials associated with the proposed development.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? LS. The southerly portion of the Anderson Property contains an older
single-family dwelling unit and associated outbuildings, all of which would be
demolished as part of the Project. Demolition of these structures could release
asbestos and/ or lead-based paint into the atmosphere. As part of the application
and consistent with appropriate mitigation measures, the Project developer would
undertake asbestos and lead-based paint surveys of the structures prior to
demolition and remediate any hazardous conditions that may be found. Necessary
permits would be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies. There is
therefore no additional potential for release of hazardous materials that has not
been previously analyzed and no additional mitigation measures required.
The Phase I ESA prepared for this Project did not identify any other conditions
that would release hazardous rnaterials into the atmosphere.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI.
Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact with
regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the Project area.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. No properties comprising the Project
area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as
an identified hazardous site as of October 15, 2007. There is therefore no impact
with regard to this topic.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS.
The Project Site is located north of the Livermore Airport, but lies outside of the
referral area of the Livermore Airport, the Airport Protection Area or any airport
safety zones from the same airport. As identified in the 2005 SEIR, no new
supplemental impacts relating to aircraft operations were found to exist when the
EDSP was amended in 2005 than were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
these operations would be considered less-than-significant with regard to the
proposed Project.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 55
January 2008
g) Intelference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed project would
include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency
evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No impact
would therefore result.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of los:;, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. The project area is
located in a substantially undeveloped area. However, this impact was analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin fIR and, with adherence to miligation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin fIR, impacts related to wildland fire would be less-than-
significant. These miljgation measures include Mitigation Measure 3.4/6.0,
requiring project developers to assist in funding n'~w fire stations and other
facilities in Eastern Dublin, Mitigation Measure 3,4/9.0 requiring use of non-
combustible roof materials, and maintaining water fire flow and pressure,
establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and installing
fire sprinklers in buildings. These requirements ar2 included in the proposed
Anderson Project.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local sUlface water
The Project Site is located within the Arroyo Las PositaE; watershed, a sub-basin of the
Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the
Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discl1arges into Alameda Creek near
Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City.
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alaneda County.
Surface water quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPCES), which controls the
discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San
Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by thE San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990
expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges
from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial proces:;es, and construction sites that
disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of
the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a ,:oordinated effort by local
governments in Alameda County to improve water qudity in San Francisco Bay.
In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations f,)r New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendltions include policies that
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 56
January 2008
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities,
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with
stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control;
and treabnent programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, ground waters, wetland and marshes.
Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing
structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not
limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooding
The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency FEMA (Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel
# 06000l-0115C).
More detailed information on hydrology and surface water quality is contained in
Chapter 4.4 of the 2005 SEIR.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
· Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 would reduce impacts related potential
flooding due to increased runoff into creeks (1M 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant
level. These mitigation measures requires new storm drainage facilities as part of
new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for
individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to
alleviate downstream flooding potential.
· Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 - 55.0 would reduce impacts related to non-point
source pollution (1M 3.5/ AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part
of development projects and that the City should develop community-based
programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source
pollution.
2005 SElR. The 2005 SEIR identified two Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures related to hydrology and water quality:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 57
January 2008
. Supplemental Impact SD-1 found that surface wlter quality standards had been
updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified. Mitigation Measure SD-1 requires that properties in the Stage 1
Development Plan adhere to water quality source control and hydrologic design
recommendations contained in the February 2005 ENGEO report. These
recommendations relate to limiting the volume c.nd quantity of stormwater
runoff entering local and regional drainage facilities.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SD-2 requires that individual development
projects in the Fallon Village area comply with hydromodification provisions
contained in the Alameda County Clean Water Program. If no Alameda County
Clean Water Program permit has been approved before individual development
proposals are approved by the City of Dublin, applicants may be required to
submit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to be )"eviewed and approved by the
City of Dublin and Zone 7. Payment of Zone 7 fees is also required.
The proposed Project on the Anderson Property will be required to adhere to the above
mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Adherence to
mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR and the
Alameda County Clean Water Program as enforced by the City of Dublin will
ensure that the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards or any
waste discharge requirements. Typical water quali ty features include use of grass
swales or mechanical equipment to filter runoff prior to entering a drainage way,
installation of on-site detention basins and other features. A final water quality
plan will be approved for this Project by the City prior to commencement of any
grading or construction, whichever occurs first. Nt) new impacts related to water
quality violations not analyzed in previous EIRs are therefore expected and no
additional mitigation measures are required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
Project Site has been slated for future urban uses snce adoption of the 1993
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and not for open
spaces or water recharge purposes. Similarly, proposed residential uses on the
Project Site would rely on imported water sources provided by Zone 7 and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District, not locally pumped groundwater. No impacts
would therefore occur with regard to this topic. A1; identified in Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0, and as identified in subsection "a," above, the
Project will include features to minimize surface and groundwater pollution,
consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Pro,~ram and City of Dublin
standards.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streamJed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS. New imperviou:; surfaces would be added to the
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 58
January 2008
Anderson Property to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and
similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns would be slightly modified based on
proposed development to channelize existing sheet flow into defined drainage
channels and underground pipes to transport water runoff to Zone 7's G-3 box
culvert just west of Fallon Road ad north of the 1-580 freeway. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR would reduce
changed drainage patterns to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure
requires the Project developer to prepare a Master Drainage Plan for the proposed
Project prior to commencement of construction.
Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce
impacts from developments such as the proposed Project related to siltation and
erosion to a less-than-significant level. These measures include a requirement for the
Project developer to submit a series of drainage Best Management Plans to
minimize erosion and siltation off of the site, consistent with requirements of the
Alameda County Clean Water Plan and City of Dublin.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that
would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR
and 2005 SEIR identified a number of mitigation measures, which the proposed
Project must adhere to, to reduce drainage and flooding impacts to a less-than-
significant level. These include preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for the
Project, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 and
Project developer contributions to funding regional drainage improvements, as
required by Mitigation Measures 3.5/47.0 and 48.0. Payment of local and regional
drainage fees to the City of Dublin and Zone 7 will meet the requirements of these
mitigation measures.
e) Create stonnwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. The ability of downstream drainage
facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from the
Project Site have been addressed in previous EIRs and the Anderson Property
Project will comply with applicable mitigation measures to ensure that drainage
impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Consistent with Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0, the Project developer's civil engineer is
required to prepare a Master Plan of Drainage to accommodate increased Project
storm water runoff. And consistent with Eastern Dublin ErR Mitigation Measures
2.6/47.0 and 48.0, the Project developer will be required to pay regional drainage
fees to assist in funding backbone drainage facilities identified in the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. This is a less-than-significant issue and has
been addressed above in item "a."
g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? NI. The Project Site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as mapped
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 59
January 2008
by FEMA. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial
Study and no impact would result with regard to tllis topic.
h, i) Place within a lOO-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. The Project Site is located
well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted
by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to mitigation m=asures contained in the Eastern
Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Inital Study (Geology and Soils)
will ensure that impacts from mudflows would be less-than-significant. These
measures include Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.6/20.0, that requires
grading plans that minimize areas to be graded, Mitigation Measure3.6/22.0,
requiring completion of site specific geotechnnical investigations and installation
of retaining structures and Mitigation Measure 3.6/23.0, requiring placements of
subsurface keys and benches to stabilize graded slopes.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
Existing land uses
The Project Site is currently vacant and contains a single family dwelling and associated
outbuildings on the soutllerly portion of the Property. The north easterly portion of the
Site is occupied by a former quarry with moderate to steeply sloping sides.
Regulatory setting
Land use on the Project Site is regulated by the Eastern)ublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific PJ an (EDSP), both of which wer= adopted in 1993. The General
Plan and EDSP presently designate the Project Site as Medium Density Residential,
which allows the development of attached and detached dwellings at densities ranging
from 6.1 to 14 dwellings per acre. The applicant has requested amendments to both the
General Plan and EDSP to redesignate the Site to Medium High Density Residential that
allows a density range between 14.1 to 25 dwellings per acre. Rezoning to a PD-
Medium High Density Residential District and approval of an amended Stage 1
Development Plan and other related approvals have also been requested to implement
the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project Property contains one
single-family dwelling with is not occupied (field investigation, 1/16/08).
Development of dwellings on the Site as proposed would not divide any
established communities on the Site and no impact would result.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The Project
applicant has submitted an application to change lmd use regulations as applied
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 60
January 2008
to the Site that would ensure consistency between applicable land use regulations
and the proposed Project so that no conflicts and no impacts would occur. The
applicant will also be required to comply with all other land use policies and
regulations as a condition of Project approval.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
The Project Site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural
community conservation plan area. There are no impacts with regard to this Project.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The Project Site contains a former quarry operation; however, neither the Eastern
Dublin General Plan, the EDSP nor any of the Supplemental EIRs identify the presence
of significant mineral resources on the Site.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable EIRs
indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the Project Site, so no impacts
would occur.
11. Noise
(This section of the Initial Study is based on a site-specific acoustic analysis of the
proposed Project conducted by Rosen, Goldberg, Der and Lewitz, dated October 31,
2007. This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is included in
the Appendix.)
Environmental Setting
The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating,
objectionable and/ or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to
noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although
noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise
levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses.
The major noise sources that affect the project site are vehicular traffic on Interstate 580
and aircraft overflights. A large earthen berm exists between the site and 1-580, which
reduces the exposure of the site to noise from traffic on 1-580.
Livermore Municipal Airport is to the southeast and flights from the Airport pass
directly over the Site. The Project Site is located within the Airport Influence Area (AlA)
for Livermore Municipal Airport and is adjacent to, but not within, the Airport
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 61
January 2008
Protection Area (AP A) for the airport. The Site would be exposed to a future CNEL of
55 dBA from aircraft activity.
Noise measurements
Noise measurements were made on and around the Project Site to quantify the existing
noise environment. These included two continuous 96-hour noise measurement and
two short-term, one-hour measurements. The noise measurement locations included a
site near the I-580 freeway, to the south of the site, one Bite along Croak Road in the
northwest corner of the Site and a third location locatec along proposed Monterosso
Avenue in the southwest corner of the Site.
Table 1 shows the results of the short-term measurements.
A total of 254 airplanes flew over or near the site during the four-day measurements.
There were an average of 69 per day during the weekday and 56 per day on the
weekend. The typical (median) noise level of an airplane fly over was 63 dBA with the
loudest airplane generating an Lmax of 83 dBA. The number of planes includes only
those fly overs that generated an Lmax of at least 63 dBA since airplanes with noise
levels below this threshold are difficult to accurately id'~ntify.
Table 2. Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
Location Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA
Len LlO LSD L9D CNEL
At northwest corner of 1 :00 P.M. -
site, first floor of 2:00 P.M. 52 54 48 46 57
1 proposed buildings (9117/2007)
At northwest corner of 1 :00 P.M. -
site, third floor of 2:00 P.M. 52 53 45 42 56
proposed buildings (911712007)
At southeast corner of 2:30 P.M. -
site, first floor of 3:30 P.M. 51 53 47 46 57
2 proposed buildings (9/17/2007)
At southeast corner of 2:30 P.M. -
site, third floor of 3:30 P.M. 50 52 44 42 56
proposed buildings (9/17/2007)
.Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is equal to the average noise level over the duration of the
measurement.
..Percentile Level (L##) is the sound level that is exceeded ## percent of the time over the
duration of the measurement, e.g. the L 10 is the noise level exceeded 10% of the time.
...Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is equal to the avercge noise level over the
duration of the measurement, with a 5 dBA penalty for hours occurring between 7 pm and 10pm,
and a 10 dBA penalty for hours occurring between 10 pm and 7 am. These penalties account for
an increased sensitivity to loud noise during evening and nighttime hours.
Source: RGDL Acoustics, 2007
The 1993 EIR addresses aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft
noise is identified as an insignificant impact in this docnment (IM 3.10/ C). Based upon
City of Dublin
Initial StudylAnderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 62
January 2008
more recent information shown in Table 2, none of the noise measurements on the
Project site exceed the minimum City of Dublin Noise Element exterior noise threshold
of 60 decibels (see Table 3, below) and this impact remains insignificant.
The 2002 SEIR included a discussion of any changes in the noise environment during
the ten years between documents. The 2002 SEIR references the Eastern Dublin EIR for
aircraft noise and therefore still considered aircraft flyover noise to be an insignificant
impact. The 2005 SEIR, found aircraft noise to be a less than significant impact after
implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-Noise-l, which implements
AB 2776 requirements within the AIA (the Project Site is within the AlA) will need to
have full disclosure regarding the presence of flyovers.
Regulatory setting
The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources
of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the
community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the 1-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type.
Table 3. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools, churches, 60-70 70-80 80+ --
nursing homes
Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
parks
Office / Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include
traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFT A,
west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific
Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise
sources are identified adjacent to the Project area.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 63
January 2008
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a rumber of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
. Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of
proposed housing to future roadway noise (1M 3.10/ A) to a less-than-significant
level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have
an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City
noise exposure levels.
. Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would red'lce impacts related to
construction noise (1M la/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans
and to limit hours of construction operations.
2002 SElR. The 2002 Supplement contains three supplemental mitigation measures
dealing with noise impacts, as follows:
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure NOISE-2limits heavy truck traffic to
designated arterial roads and truck routes in the Fallon Village area.
2005 SElR. The SEIR prepared in 2005 contains the following supplemental noise
mitigation measures:
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1~equires that residents of
residential developments in the Fallon Village area receive written notification of
aircraft overflights from Livermore Airport
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2~equires an acoustical study
must be prepared for future residential projects in the Fallon Village area.
, The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures contained in the previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noisl~ levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable stardard and result in a substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. T\e 2005 SEIR shows that the
Project Site would be exposed to a CNEL of between 60 and 65 dBA from traffic
on 1-580. However, the noise contours in the 2005 SEIR do not account for the
large earthen berm to the south that provides sigrificant acoustical shielding from
noise generated by vehicles using the 1-580 freewclY, Based on the site
measurements and calculations, the upper floors of the proposed dwellings would
be exposed to a future CNEL of up to 57 dBA from 1-580.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 64
January 2008
Future noise from traffic along Croak Road would result in the Project being
exposed to a CNEL of up to 62 dBA. Dwelling units exposed to a CNEL in excess
of 60 dBA would be those located in the 12-plex near the Project entrance off Croak
Road. Specifically, only rooms that face Croak Road would be exposed to a CNEL
of 62 dBA. All other dwelling units would be exposed to a CNEL of less than 60
dBA due to aircraft and distant 1-580 traffic. Exposure of units along Croak to a
CNEL in excess of 60 dBA could be potentially significant impact; however the
Project applicant has incorporated the following features into the proposed project:
· Installation of standard double glazed windows having a minimum
Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 24;
· Installation of mechanical ventilation to allow windows to remain
closed for noise control, if desired for the dwellings closest to Croak
Road;
· Installation of solid balusters or railings for upper floor balconies in the
12-plex building closest to the northerly project entrance off Croak
Road.
Based upon the design of the Project to include the above noise reduction
measures, impacts related to substantial permanent noise increases and exposure
of people to noise levels in excess of City noise standards would not be more
severe than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the two SEIRs and would be
less-than-significant.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS.
According to the Project applicant, normal construction methods would be used to
build the proposed Project so there would be limited and less-than-significant
generation of groundborne noise or vibration.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? LS. The proposed Project is required to adhere to
construction noise mitigation rneasures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to
minimize the impacts of construction noise, including Mitigation Measure
3.10/4.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0, to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? NI. No portions of the project area are located within the
Livermore Airport AP A and no impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this
topic.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 65
January 2008
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments
agency responsible for preparing and tracking population and demographic changes
within the Bay Area region anticipates that the Bay Area will continue to grow at a
steady rate. Factors contributing to this growth include a favorable climate, recreational
activities, top universities and career opportunities. OVI~r the next 20 years, the
population is expected to increase to more than 8.3 million persons, a approximately
18% increase over the 2005 population. Population increases are expected to be
primarily due to increases in births and longer life expectancies rather than significant
in-migration.
Table 2 depicts anticipated comparative growth in the Hay Area, Alameda County and
Dublin.
Table 4. Regional, County and Dublin Total
Population (Pop) & Household (HID Projections
2005 2015 2025
Pop. HHs Pop. HHs Pop. HHs
Region 7,096,100 2,583,080 7,730,000 2,819,')30 8,389,600 3,059,130
Alameda 1,505,300 543,790 1,635,700 589,? 80 1,776,900 643,030
Co.
Dublin 41,200 13,440 56,800 19,0'70 69,200 23,770
Source: ABAG Projections 200:~
ABAG notes that the Tri-Valley areas are anticipated to experience the highest growth
rates in Alameda County over the next 20 years.
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
General Plan Amendment proposal which anticipated a buildout of 17,970 dwelling
units. The GP A and Specific Plan approved by the City provided the potential future
development of approximately 2,500 residential acres (May 4, 1993 Addendum to the
Eastern Dublin EIR, p.12). The Project Site was designated for residential development
in both the approved General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 66
January 2008
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS.
Approval of the proposed Project would incrementally increase population growth
in the Eastern Dublin portion of the community by increasing the number of
dwellings allowed on the Project site by 38 dwellings, from 70 to 108 attached
dwellings. Based on a per household population of 2.0 persons per dwelling,
consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR assumptions (Table 3.2-7), there would be a
maximum of 76 additional residents on the Project Site over and above that
anticipated in the current General Plan and EDSP. Such increase would be less-
than-significant since the Positano project to the north (included within the overall
Fallon Village area) was approved with a maximum development dwelling unit
count of 1,078 dwellings whereas only 1,046 dwellings were included in the
subdivision map for this project. Therefore, the estimated development potential
for Eastern Dublin would not exceed the Eastern Dublin EIR assumptions and no
additional impacts would result.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The existing dwelling on the Project site is vacant and no impact would result with
regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the Project Site:
· Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Deparhnent. The Deparhnent provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 17, located west of
the Project area at 6200 Madigan.
· Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Deparhnent.
· Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
· Library Services: Alameda County Library service
· Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous EIRs
Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
police protection include:
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 67
January 2008
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish approFriate funding mechanisms to
cover up-front costs if capital fire improvements.
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations
on project design relating to access, water prEssure, fire safety and prevention
into the requirements of development appro,'al.
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval,
that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in
place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urbani open
space interface.
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall vTork with the Fire Department
and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project
area.
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and
revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for
police protection service in Eastern Dublin.
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate il.to the requirements of project
approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect
traffic safety and crime prevention.
The proposed Development Plan on the Anderson Property is required to adhere to
these mitigation measures related to fire protection. Ne:ther the 2002 nor the 2005 SEIRs
contain supplemental mitigation measures related to fire protection.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of a
residential development on the Anderson Propert:1 would increase the number of
fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by
the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire
department. The proposed development on the Anderson Property is required to
adhere to mitigation measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to
assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure
3.4/7.0), so that impacts to the Alameda County Fire Department related to
approval and construction of the proposed Project would be less-than-significant.
Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation ME asure 3.4/9.0, proposed
development on the Project Site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department
requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure
and fire flow, providing adequate site access and using fire retardant building
materials. Proposed development on the Site will also be conditioned to be
consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Mana~;ement Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0).
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 68
January 2008
b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire protection, there would be a less-than-significant
impact with regard to police protection, based on the following mitigation
measures included in the Eastern Dublin ErR. These Mitigation Measures include
paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police
facilities (Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0) incorporating Police Deparbnent safety and
security requirements into the proposed Project, including but not limited to
adequate locking devices, lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for
structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0).
c) Schools? LS. There would be a less-than-significant impact to school service should
the proposed Project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact
fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of
educational impacts pursuant to CEQA.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? LS.
Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City
of Dublin with a less-than-significant impact in regard to this topic. New
public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin
standards, so that long-term maintenance is not anticipated to result in
significant impacts.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. See item 16 "e" and '''f,'' below.
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
No neighborhood or community parks and/ or recreation services or facilities are
located on the Project Site or designated on the Site in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
The City of Dublin offers a range of park. recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the project area is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
southwest comer of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project area.
Emerald Glen Park consists of approximately 23 acres of land and provides a wide
range of recreation and open space amenities for Dublin residents. The City of Dublin
also maintains a large number of other park and recreational facilities within the
community and offers an extensive recreation program to residents.
The EDSP identifies a future 18.3-acre City of Dublin Community Park on the Jordan
Property, just west of the Project Site, and a 2.7-acre Neighborhood Square, also to the
west of the Site. A 55-acre City neighborhood park is planned northwest of the Site as
well. A major sports park is planned for the northwest comer of Fallon Road and
Dublin Boulevard.
These parks will be constructed from a combination of City public facilities impact fees
and developer dedications of land at the time development on adjacent properties
occur.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 69
January 2008
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay RE~gional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of mitigation measures
related to parks and recreational facilities, as follows.
. Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0-28.0 calls for the acquisition and development of
new parks and oilier outdoor facilities in Easterr. Dublin, requiring land
dedication and/ or park in-lieu fees for new subdivisions and similar techniques
to provide for additional park and recreational features. Implementation of all of
the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a
ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.
· Mitigation Measures 3.4/29.0-31.0 requires that {~ach new development in
Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities.
Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for, to identify and
prioritize parkland in Eastern Dublin. Finally, acoption of a park in-lieu fee
program was required as a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance. Consistent with these mitigations, the City requires residential
project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision approval and
pay Public Facility Fees (which includes park in-lieu fees) to fund both the
development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as other
community facilities.
. Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0 requires the establi1;hment of a trail system with
connections to planned regional and subregional trails, which would reduce this
impact to an insignificant level.
. Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0-36.0 call for use of natural stream corridors and
major ridgelines to create a comprehensive, inte~;rated trail system that allows
safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate
public access along ridgetops and stream corridcrs to accommodate trail and
staging areas.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR described a proposed action of that project to detach the
Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD) as part of
the larger reorganization that also included annexation of the Project area to the City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the reorganization proposal, the
City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation facLities and services to Project area
residents as part of the larger spectrum of municipal services. The reorganization was
approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2002 and
the Site now receives park and recreation facilities and ~;ervices provided by the City of
Dublin.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 70
January 2008
No supplemental park and recreation impacts were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
The Project developers will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation
measures contained in the previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS.
Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use of
nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include
increasing the on-site permanent population on the Site. However, the
Project applicants are required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR
mitigation measures, including payment of City public facilities fees to assist
the City to purchase and/ or improve parks throughout the community that
could be used by Project residents. Therefore, this impact would be less-than-
significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? LS. See item "a," above Since proposed developrnent on the Anderson
property will be subject to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation rneasures, impacts related
to provision or construction of recreational facilities would be less-than-significant.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
Existing roadways
The Project Site is served by Fallon Road, with direct access to Interstate 580 and Croak
Road, a collector road.
Fallon Road is a north-south two to four lane arterial extending from 1-580 to about 2
miles north of 1-580. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara Road on the north in
future. As a part of on-going development in east Dublin, it will eventually be widened
to eight lanes near 1-580, six lanes near Dublin Boulevard and four lanes to the north.
Croak Road intersects Fallon Road just north of the Fallon Road/I-580 intersection. This
two-lane roadway terminates north of the Project Site and provides access to dwellings
and properties in the southeastern portion of the Fallon Village area.
Interstate 580 (1-580) is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local
cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations
such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, 1-580
carries between 184,000 and 196,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans 2003
Traffic Volumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty
Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon
Road/EI Charro Road.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037j
Page 71
January 2008
Existing transit service
Transit service to the Project area is provided by the following:
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels)./fWheels" is the fixed-route
transit service provided by the Livermore Amador V all~y Transit Authority (LA VT A)
for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Bus Lines that
currently provide service to east Dublin include routes 12 and 20. Route 12 provides
service between the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station a:ld the Livermore Transit Center
at approximate 30-minute head ways on weekdays bern'een 5:30 a.m. and 9:50 p.m.
Route 12 provides service on weekends between 7:00 a. m. and 7:00 p.m. at one hour
headways. Route 20 provides weekday morning and af:ernoon service at 30-minute
headways. Both routes 12 and 20 provide service along 1-580 in the immediate vicinity
of the project. Route 202 provides school service connecting Fallon Road to Wells
Middle School and Dublin High School once each in the morning and afternoon
periods.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. BART provideE regional rail transit access from
the Dublin/Pleasanton station. BART runs at 15- to 20-minute headways between 4:00
AM and 12:00 AM on weekdays. Saturday service is available every 20 minutes
between 6:00 AM and 12:4:5 AM. Service is also available on Sunday from 8:00 AM to
12:45 AM with 20-minute headways.
A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is under construction and is expected to be
operational in 2009. In addition, long-range planning stJ.dies of potentially extending
BART lines to Livermore are being conducted. The studies also will examine alternative
means of improving transit service to Livermore in the3ART corridor until funds are
available to construct the BART extension.
ACE Commuter Train. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) offers an alternative to the
automobile for regional commute trips from Livermore to Pleasanton and the South Bay
area including Fremont, Santa Clara and San Jose. SinCE primarily serving commute
trips to the Bay area, ACE trains run westbound in the morning, and run eastbound in
the everling. There is one ACE station in Pleasanton neer the intersection of Bernal
Avenue and Pleasanton Avenue. Livermore has two ACE stations, one in Downtown
near the Livermore Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersect on and the other on Vasco
Road, at the Vasco Road/Brisa Street intersection. In tht~ morning, westbound trains
stop at Pleasanton at approximately 5:40 a.m., 6:45 a.m. and 7:55 a.m. In the evening,
eastbound trains stop at Pleasanton at approximately 4:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including the following mitigation
measures
. :Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts
on 1-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on 1-680 north of 1-580 to a
level of insignificance.
City of Dublin
Initial StudylAnderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 72
January 2008
· Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
the remaining 1-580 freeway segments and the 1-580/680 interchange. Even with
mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on 1-580 freeway
segments between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of
2010, on other segments of 1-580.
· Mitigation Measures 3.3/6.0 - 8.0, -10.0 and -12.0 were adopted to reduce
impacts to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580
Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road.I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps,
Airway Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersections and long El Charro Road to a
level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes
at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of
Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps
and interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are
also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee program and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program.
· Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
· Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 -15.3 and 16.0 -16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings.
2002 SEIR. The following mitigation measures were included in the 2002 SEIR.
· Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-1 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening
the I-58G/Hacienda Drive eastbound ramp to include an additional left turn
lane.
· Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC-2 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening
the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 to 4 lanes as well as
modifying the westbound loop on-ramp to meet Caltrans design standards.
· Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-3 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of converting
the east bound I-58G/Santa Rita to a shared left-turn/through lane.
· Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to install a signal at the Dublin
Boulevard / Street D intersection.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 73
January 2008
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-5 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of installing a
traffic signal at the Fallon Road/Project Road intersection.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-6 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of
reconfiguring the eastbound Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-7 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to construct an additional through lane on
northbound Fallon Road, an additional left-turn lane and an additional through
lane on southbound Fallon Road.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-8 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for the possible
relocating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard in-:ersection further north and the
feasibility of adding a new signalized Project inb~rsection south of the relocated
Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard relocated intersection.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-9 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village to fund widening Fallon Road between the 1-580
freeway and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, fOJ' widening Fallon Road between
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to six lanes and for widening Fallon
Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Fallon
Road/I-580 over crossing shall also be widened b) six lanes.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC-IO requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes.
2005 SElR. The 2005 SEIR contained the following traffic and transportation mitigation
measures:
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-I requires individual project
developers in the Fallon Village area advance construction to improve the
Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection or, if the City's Traffic Impact
Fee Program is updated in the future to fund these improvements, use of traffic
fees would mitigate this cumulative impact.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA-2 requires all project developers in
the Fallon Village area to fund the widening of the 1-580 eastbound off ramp at
Santa Rita Road to accommodate additional peak hour cumulative traffic.
. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRA-3 requires project developers in the
Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rate share of funding to widen the Central
Parkway /Hacienda Drive intersection to accommodate anticipated cumulative
traffic.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 74
January 2008
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan EIR, 2002 and 2005 SEIRs shall apply to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the Project Site with
Medium Density residential land uses, and adopted mitigation measures to
address the impacts thereof. However, the applicant has requested that the EDSP
be amended to redesignate the Anderson Property to Medium High Density
Residential. If approved, the maximum number of dwellings on the Site would be
increased by 38 dwellings, to a total of 108 dwellings.
Based on a trip generation rate of 6.72 daily trips per dwelling (as shown in Table
4.2.2 of the 2005 SEIR), the number of trips generated by the additional 38
dwelling units would be 255 trips. This would equate to 19 a.m. peak hour trips
and 24 p.m. peak hour trips.
In reviewing buildout impacts of adding proposed Project traffic to intersections
near the Project site (see Table 4.2.7 of the 2005 SEIR), the addition of 19 a.m. and
24 p.m. peak hour trips to peak hour traffic at the intersections listed below would
not result in any of these intersections becoming significantly impacted.
Table 5. Fallon Village Project, Intersection Levels of Service,
Buildout Plus Proposed Anderson Project
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
ID Signalized Intersections
v/c LOS v/c LOS
14 Fallon Road/I-580 WB Ramps 0.64 B 0.66 B
15 Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.76 C 0.89 D
18 Hacienda/Martinelli Way /Hacienda 0.72 C 0.75 C
Crossings
19 Croak Road/Dublin Boulevard 0.65 B 0.61 B
20 Fallon Road/ Central Parkway 0.57 A 0.41 A
21 Fallon Road/Dublin Ranch Entrance 0.50 A 0.53 A
22 Croak Road / Central Parkway 0.24 A 0.30 A
Note: v / c = volume to capacity ratio; LOS = Level of Service
Source: TJKM Associates 2005
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? LS. Approval and implementation of the proposed
Project would add an additional number of daily and peak hour trips to ACCMA
facilities but would not add 100 or rnore peak P.M. trips to ACCMA facilities,
which is the threshold for exceeding a CMA threshold.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 75
January 2008
c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed pro ect would have no impact on air
traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residEntial development and related
enti tlements.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature c r incompatible use? LS. Approval
of the proposed Project and future development 0 would add new driveways,
sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently
exist. The EDSP and the Dublin Municipal Code contain design standards
intended to assure that access to and from a development area, and circulation
within the area, will be safe and efficient. Since Project facilities will be required to
be constructed to these design standards, no signiJicant impacts with regard to
creating design hazards or unsafe conditions are anticipated.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Proposed development on the Anderson
Property includes access drives on to both Croak Road and Monterosso Avenue,
so that adequate emergency access to and from the area would be provided per
Dublin Fire Department standards. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. No impacts to parking requirements are anticipated
since the project will be required to comply with City of Dublin parking
requirements. The adequacy of on-site parking facilities will be ensured through
the SDR review process by the City of Dublin.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. T1.e proposed Project would
include construction of sidewalks on the Croak Read and Monterosso Avenue
frontages to facilitate pedestrian access. Bicyclists:ould use both roads as well to
access Fallon Road and other roads, so that no significant impacts to this topic
would result.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area is served by the following service providers:
. Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
. Sewage collection and treabnent: DSRSD.
. Storm drainage: Gty of Dublin and Zone 7.
· Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
. Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
. Communications: A T & T.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 76
January 2008
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin ElR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Irnpact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5 / Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 31.0-32.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant
and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system rnaster plan, requires all new
development to be cormected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 / C noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer
demand from the Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5 / G found that lack of wastewater
disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is
presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a
potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/8.0, which requires that wastewater treatment and
disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 77
January 2008
2002 SEJR. The 2002 SEIR identified two supplemental impacts related to utilities and
service systems. Supplemental Impact UTS-l identified an uncertain energy supply
within this portion of PC & E's service territory. Mitigalion Measures SM-UTS-l
required City discretionary review prior to installation of anyon-site power generators
and SM-UTS-2 requires that applicants for Site Development Review approvals obtain
will serve letters from PC & E prior to approval of such applications.
Supplemental Impact SM-2 identified a supplemental impact with regard to constraints
of PC & E's local distribution system. This impact woul:l. be mitigated by adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measures UTS-l and 2.
2005 SEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation meamres related to utilities or
service systems were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR will apply
to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The Project Site is
located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicants have requested
water and wastewater service from the District. Applicable mitigation measures
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to lhis Project to ensure that
adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that wcter and wastewater facilities are
consistent with wastewater discharge requirements mandated by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, impacts 2ssociated with this topic would
be less-than-significant.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
LS. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require devdopers of each individual
project in the Eastern Dublin area to fund their fair share contribution to construct
major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as:o either fund or construct local
water and wastewater facilities shown in the EDSP. Therefore, although new water
and wastewater facilities would be needed to serve proposed development on the
Anderson Property, these facilities have been identified in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan as amended in 2005 and as analyzed in the 2005SEIR. Section 3.4 of
the 2005 SEIR includes a description of water and Nastewater facilities that are will
be built as part of the overall Fallon Village project, which includes the Anderson
Site. As part of Project review by the City of Dubli:1, DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs, the
Anderson Project will either be required to construct a portion of these identified
facilities in order to support the proposed Project or pay development impact fees
to assist in the construction of regional water and wastewater facilities. The 2005
SEIR did not identify any significant supplementa: or more severe water or
wastewater impacts than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. As noted
previously in this Initial Study, the Project would include an increase in the
number of dwelling units assumed in previous Ems, but the number of dwellings
in the approved Positano project, north of the Pro}~ct Site, was reduced by an
approximately similar number of dwellings so that no new impacts would result.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 78
January 2008
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The proposed development project would
require new drainage facilities to support proposed development. The Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, as amended in 2005 and analyzed in the 2005 SEIR (p. 24),
identifies storm drain facilities to be constructed as part of the larger Fallon Village
Project to ensure that adequate drainage is provided. The Project applicant will be
required to either construct these facilities or pay development impact fees to assist
in the construction of regional drainage facilities. The 2005 SEIR did not identify
supplemental or more severe drainage impacts than identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and impacts related to drainage facilities would be less-than-significant.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. The provision of water supplies was
addressed in the 2002 SEIR, since the Fallon Village project was proposed to be
annexed into the City of Dublin and DSRSD at that time. Under a previous legal
settlement agreement, DSRSD was required to approve a Programmatic Water
Service Analysis prior to annexation. This analysis was included as part of the 2002
SEIR (pages 3.7-4-6) and found that DSRSD had identified an adequate long-term
water supply for the overall Fallon Village Project. Land uses contained in the
proposed Anderson Property Project are generally consistent with the 2005 SEIR.
Any additional water demand from the proposed Project would be balanced by a
reduction in the amount of water use from the Positano Project so that no
additional impacts relating to water demands are anticipated with this Project
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. See response to "a,"
above.
e, f) Solid waste disposal? LS. The project area is within the franchise area of Amador
Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste
pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a less-than-significant would result with
regard to this topic.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI.
The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid
waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved. No impacts are
anticipated in this regard.
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. Potential
impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their
respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 79
January 2008
species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory in
the eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR and two Supplemental EIRs. The proposed Project would cause no
new or substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural resources
beyond those identified in previous EIRs.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim.:ted, 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). No.
Significant and unavoidable impacts have been id,~ntified with regard to
cumulative biological, air quality and transportation issues for the overall Eastern
Dublin project, of which the Anderson Property is a component. The proposed
Project on the Anderson Property would not result in additional or more
significant cumulative impacts than have been prEviously analyzed by the City.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ::ause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been
discovered in the course of preparing this Initial S:udy.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 80
January 2008
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Senior Planner
Mark Lander, City Engineer
Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
W ebsi te
Applicant Representatives
Jeff Lawrence. Braddock & Logan
Connie Goldade, MacKay & Somps
References
Bay Area Air Ouality Management District CEQA Guidelines, Revised
December 1999
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore
Associates, 1996
Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation, Draft
Supplemental ElK City Dublin, January 2002
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Fallon Village Project, Draft Supplemental ElK August 2005
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 81
January 2008
Resource Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin Properties, WRA and Zander
Associates, 2004
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 82
January 2008
Appendix
-Project Acoustic Analysis
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Anderson Property
PA 07-037
Page 83
January 2008
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ, INC.
~tj"j I(J;'l!id --:'\~jdfl~::J!')lf;:d (ur "ulti:lnt~)
SITE NOISE ASSESSMENT:
Anderson Property at Fallon Village
Dublin, CA
RGDL Project #: 07-105-1
PREPARED FOR:
Jerry Haag
Urban Planner
2029 University Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94704
PREPARED By:
Alan Rosen
David Jensen
DATE:
15 January 2008
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ' Larkspur CA 94939 ~ Tel 415 464 0150 . F, x 415 4640155 , RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 1
15 January 2007
1. Introduction
This project proposes construction of new multi-family residential units in Dublin,
California. The project site is undeveloped but was quarried in the past. The
major noise sources affecting the site are vehicular traffic on Interstate 580 and
airplane f1yovers from nearby Livermore Municipal Airport. This study addresses
the noise with respect to the requirements of the California Building Code, City of
Dublin General Plan and the findings of the Fallon Village EIR and Supplemental
EIR.
2. Environmental Noise Fundamentals
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an
instrument called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound
with a microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound
levels are expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a
level that corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is
used. A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound
in a manner similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most
local General Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans,
EPA, OSHA and HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the
A-weighted sound level is reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many
descriptors that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual
descriptor alone does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken
together, they can more accurately represent the noise environment. The
maximum instantaneous noise level (Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of
a single event such as a car pass by or airplane flyover. To express the average
noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is used. The Leq can be measured over
any length of time but is typically reported for periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The
background noise level (or residual noise level) is the sound level during the
quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources such as distant
freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90 which is the
sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/Night Average Sound
Level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These
descriptors are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during
nighttime hours (and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account
for peoples increased sensitivity during these hours. The CNEL and Ldn are
typically less that one decibel from each other.
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just
noticeable difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A
10 dB change is perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ. INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ~ Larkspur CA 94939 . Tel 415 464 0150 . Fax 415 464 0155 ' RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 2
15 January 2007
3. Acoustical Criteria
3.1. State of California
The State of California's Building Code (Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A)
has requirements for control of environmental noise intrusion into new
residential construction. For outdoor noise intrusion, the code states that
interior noise levels due to external sources shall not exceed a CNEL of 45
dBA in any habitable room. If the windows must remain closed in order to
meet the required noise level, an alternate mean:; of ventilation such as air-
conditioning must be provided.
The State building code also has requirements fer airborne and impact noise
isolation between adjacent dwelling units. The airborne and impact sound
isolation requirements are typically handled in thE! architectural design phase
and are beyond the scope of this environmental noise analysis.
3.2. City of Dublin
The Dublin Noise Element is found in Chapter 9 of the City's General Plan. It
contains a guiding policy to mitigate traffic noise levels to those indicated by
Table 9.1 of the Noise Element.
For residential development, a CNEL of 60 dBA or less is considered
"Normally Acceptable". A CNEL of 60 to 70 dBA is "Conditionally Acceptable"
and requires that noise insulation features be inc uded in the project design.
A CNEL of 70 to 7ti dBA is "Normally Unacceptable" for residences. For
offices and retail commercial, the City is more lenient since these uses are
considered less noise sensitive. A CNEL of 70 dBA or less is normally
acceptable while a CNEL of 70 to 75 dBA is conclitionally acceptable.
The City of Dublin does not have a quantitative goal for noise levels in
residential outdoor use areas. The General Plan does, however, identify a
CNEL of 60 to 65 dBA as being "conditionally acceptable" for neighborhood
parks. Depending upon the City's interpretation, the outdoor standard for
balconies could be, most conservatively, a CNEL of 60 dBA or a CNEL of
65 dBA if balcony use is considered to be similar to park use.
The Noise Element has implementing policies to help achieve the goal of
mitigating traffic noise impacts. The following twe implementing policies apply
to this project:
H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected
60 CNEL contour for compliance with noisl~ standards (45 CNEL in any
habitable room) as required by State law. The noise element further
states that project designers may use one or more of four available
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 .. Larkspur CA 94939 .. Tel415 464 0150 . Fax 4154640155 . RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 3
15 January 2007
categories of mitigation measures: site planning, architectural layout
(bedrooms away from noise source for example), noise barriers, or
construction modifications.
3.3.Alameda County ALUC and State AB 2776
The current Airport Land Use Policy Plan was adopted by the Alameda County
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) on July 16, 1986. The ALUC Plan also
contains noise contour maps and a referral area map.
In 2004, The California Legislature adopted AB 2776. AB 2776 requires
disclosure of all existing and proposed airports within two statute miles of a
residential subdivision. The disclosure documents must also include a statement
regarding noise from aircraft overflights if the subdivision is located within an
Airport Influence Area (AlA).
According to discussion with County staff1, the ALUC considers the general
referral zone to be equivalent to the airport influence area as discussed in AB
2776. Therefore proposed subdivisions within 4000 feet of the 1-580 centerline
would be located within the AlA and require disclosure statements regarding
airport noise as per the requirements of AB 2776. The project site is entirely
contained within the AlA.
On January 13, 1993 the Alameda County ALUC adopted resolution 93-01 which
incorporates policies and standards to create an Airport Protection Area (APA)
around Livermore Airport. The APA area was established to ensure continued
safety in the airport region and to avoid potential noise incompatibilities between
the airport and encroaching residential uses. The APA is located 5000 feet north
of the airport and runs generally east to west, parallel to Runway 25R-7L. The
project site is adjacent to, but outside of the APA.
4. Noise Environment
The major noise sources that affect the project site are vehicular traffic on
Interstate 580 and aircraft overflights. A large earthen berm exists between the
site and 1-580, which reduces the exposure of the site to noise from traffic on 1-
580. Livermore Municipal Airport is to the southeast and flights from the Airport
pass directly over the site.
Noise measurements were made on and around the project site to quantify the
existing noise environment. These included two continuous 96-hour noise
measurement and two short-term, one hour measurements. The noise
measurement locations are shown in Figure 1. Measurement A is located near
the freeway, to the south of the site.
1 Telephone conversation with Cynthia Horvath, Staff Planner, Alameda County Airport Land Use
Commission, 1 July 2005
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
LEWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ~ Larkspur CA 94939 . Tel415 464 0150 . Fax 415 464 0155 . RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 4
15 January 2007
The short-term measurement results were correlated with simultaneous
measurements at the long-term monitoring location to determine the Ldn at the
short-term measurement locations. Table 1 shows the results of the short-term
measurements. Figures 2 and 3 show the hourly plot of the measured noise
levels at long-term measurement Locations A and B, respectively.
A total of 254 airplanes flew over or near the site during the four day
measurements. There were an average of 69 per day during the weekday and 56
per day on the weekend. The typical (median) noise level of an airplane flyover
was 63 dBA with the loudest airplane generating an Lmax of 83 dBA. The number
of planes includes only those flyovers that generated an Lmax of at least 63 dBA
since airplanes with noise levels below this threshold are difficult to accurately
identify.
Figure 1: Noise Measurement Locations
.
N
APA Line
~~580
t
MONTEROSSO AVENUE
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ' Larkspur CA 94939 " Tel 415 464 0150 . Fax 415 464 0155 . RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 5
15 January 2007
Table 1: Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
Location Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA
Lea L10 Lso Lao CNEL
At northwest corner of 1 :00 P.M. -
site, first floor of 2:00 P.M. 52 54 48 46 57
1 proposed buildings (9/17/2007)
At northwest corner of 1:00 P.M.-
site, third floor of 2:00 P.M. 52 53 45 42 56
proposed buildings (9/17/2007)
At southeast corner of 2:30 P.M. -
site, first floor of 3:30 P.M. 51 53 47 46 57
2 proposed buildings (9/17/2007)
At southeast corner of 2:30 P.M. -
site, third floor of 3:30 P.M. 50 52 44 42 56
proposed buildings (9/17/2007)
.Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is equal to the average noise level over the duration of the measurement.
..Percentile Level (L##) is the sound level that is exceeded ## percent of the time over the duration of the
measurement, e.g. the LlO is the noise level exceeded 10% of the time.
...Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is equal to the average noise level over the duration of the
measurement, with a 5 dBA penalty for hours occurring between 7 pm and 10pm, and a 10 dBA penalty for
hours occurring between 10 pm and 7 am. These penalties account for an increased sensitivity to loud noise
during evening and nighttime hours.
Figure 2: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results at Location A
CNEL = 79 dBA
80
70
<
III
"t:J
a;
>
..
..J
..
VI
~ 60
..
D>
f!
..
>
<
>.
"C
:J
o
:I: 50
40
C> <:> <:> C> <:> <:> <:> C> C> C> <:> <:> <:> C> C> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> C> C> C> <:> C>
C> <:> <:> C> <:> <:> <:> <:> C> <:> <:> <:> <:> C> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> <:> C> <:> <:> <:> C>
N <D 0 0 <i co N <D 0 0 <i co N <D 0 0 <i co N <D 0 0 <i co N <D
~ N N ~ N N
9/13/07 9/14/07 9/15/07 Time 9/16/07 9/17/07
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ, INC.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 . Larkspur CA 94939 .. Tel 4154640150 . Fax 415 4640155 .. RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 6
15 January 2007
ct
III
1:l
Q;
>
Q)
..J
Q)
III
~ 60
Q)
en
E
Q)
~
>-
;:
::l
o
:I: 50
Figure 3: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results at Location B
CNEL = 58 dBA
80
70
40
'" '" '" '" '" '" c '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
'" '" '" '" '" '" c '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
N cD 0 0 ~ cO ~ cD 0 0 ~ cO N cD 0 0 ~ cO N cD 0 0 ~ cO N cD
~ ~ N ~ N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~
9/13/07 9/14/07 9/15/07 Time 9/16/07 9/17/07
5. Impacts From Previous EIRs
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
LEWITZ,INC
5.1. Aircraft Flvovers
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR prepared in 1993 (1993 EIR) addresses
aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft noise is identified as
an insignificant impact in the 1993 EIR (1M 3.10/C)
A supplement to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (2002 SEIR) was prepared in
2002 to identify any changes in the noise envirorment during the ten years
between documents. The 2002 SEIR references the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
for aircraft noise and therefore still considers aircraft flyover noise to be an
insignificant impact.
A 2005 SEIR does acknowledge, in Supplemental Impact NOISE-1, however,
that flyovers would be audible throughout the Fallon Village area and also
acknowledges in Supplemental Noise Mitigation V1easure SM-Noise -1 (2005
SEIR pg. 226) that any residences within the AlA (the project site is within the
AlA) will need to have full disclosure provided reHarding the presence of
flyovers, as per AB 2776.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 < Larkspur CA 94939 Tel 415 464 0150 Fax 415 464 0155 ~ RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 7
15 January 2007
5.2. Parks Reserve Forces Traininq Area (Camp Parks)
The 1993 EIR addresses noise from Camp Parks. The 2002 SEIR considers
Camp Parks to be a potentially significant impact for future residential
development within 6,000 feet (1M 3.1 OlD) that requires mitigation (MM
3.10/3.0). As noted in the 2005 SEIR, none of the residential development in
the Fallon Village area, including the Anderson residential site, is within 6,000
feet of Camp Parks.
Furthermore, the 2002 SEIR states that the East Dublin SP area is outside the
area of concern for noise as described in a 2000 Environmental Noise
Management Plan for Camp Parks.
5.3. Traffic
The 1993 EIR considers traffic noise to be a significant impact that required
mitigation (1M 3.10/A, 1M 3.10/B, MM3.10/1.0 and MM 3.10/2.0).
The 2002 SEIR finds that suggested mitigation measures from the 1993 EIR
continue to be sufficient to reduce the impact from traffic noise to a less-than-
significant level. No supplemental impacts were identified as to traffic noise.
The 1993 EIR as well as the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs identify a noise impact for
the east side of Croak Road and Upper Loop Road.
The 2005 SEIR continues to identify traffic noise as a potentially significant
impact requiring mitigation measures to reduce indoor and outdoor nose to
less-than-significant levels. The 2005 SEIR identified a supplemental impact
for noise exposure for residential development along Croak Road, which
includes the subject project, and includes Supplemental Mitigation Measure
SM-Noise-2 to address this impact.
5.4. Construction
The 1993 EIR identifies exposure of existing and proposed residences to
construction noise as a potentially significant impact (1M 3. 1 OlE) that requires
mitigation (MM 3.10/4.0 and MM 3/10/5/0).
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
LEWITZ,INc.
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 . Larkspur CA 94939 . Tel 415 464 0150 . Fax 415 464 0155 .. RGDLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 8
15 January 2007
6. Impacts and Recommendations
All previous documents (1993 EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR) continue to
identify traffic and construction as potentially sigr ificant noise impacts that
require mitigation. The following discuss these inpacts and the associated
mitigation contained in these earlier EIRs.
6.1. Traffic Noise
The 2005 SEIR shows that the project site will bE exposed to a CNEL of
between 60 and 65 dBA from traffic on 1-580. Hcwever, the noise contours in
the 2005 SEIR do not account for the large earth:m berm that provides
significant acoustical shielding of 1-580. Based on our measurements, the
upper floors of the homes would be exposed to a future CNEL of up to 57 dBA
from 1-580. This is not a significant impact.
Future noise from traffic along Croak Road will result in the project being
exposed to a CNEL of up to 62 dBA. Units expo~;ed to a CNEL in excess of
60 dBA would be those located in the 12-plex ne;3r the project entrance off
Croak Road. In particular, only rooms that face Croak Road would be
exposed to a CNEL of 62 dBA. All other units would be exposed to a CNEL of
less than 60 dBA due to aircraft and distant 1-58C traffic. In accordance with
the Supplemental Development-Level Impact Noise-2 in the 2005 SEIR,
exposure of units along Croak to a CNEL in excess of 60 dBA is a potentially
significant impact. Consistent with adopted supplemental mitigation measure
SM-Noise-2, this acoustic analysis was prepared to show how the City's noise
standards will be met.
Indoor Noise Recommendations - The "SitH Development Review for
Anderson Property" includes drawings dated May 2007 and June 19th 2007.
A review of the aforementioned drawings indicates that a CNEL of 45 dBA
can be met with standard double glazed windows having a minimum Sound
Transmission Class (STC) of 24.
Exposure to a CNEL of greater than 60 dBA will require that units closest to
Croak Road (12-plex near project entrance: have mechanical ventilation to
allow windows to remain closed for noise control, if desired. The
preliminary drawings indicate that the entirE' project will have mechanical
ventilation.
Outdoor Noise Recommendations - A pool and lawn area is located near
the center of the project site. The CNEL at this location would be less than
60 dBA and therefore, no further steps are "equired.
There are small outdoor balconies facing Croak Road that are associated
with each dwelling unit. Most of these balconies would be exposed to a
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER&
LEWITZ,ltic
1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 . Larkspur CA 94939 . Tet 415 464 0150 . Fax 415 464 0155 '" RG DLacoustics.com
Anderson Property at Fallon Village, Dublin, CA
Site Noise Assessment
Page 9
15 January 2007
"normally acceptable" CNEL of less than 60 dBA except for those in the 12-
plex closest to the project entrance off Croak Road. These dwellings would
be exposed to a "conditionally acceptable" CNEL of 62 dBA.
The balcony railings are currently shown as being solid so they would
provide some acoustical shielding for a person sitting on the balcony.
However, for a standing person, the CNEL would exceed 60 dBA or less.
Since these balconies are not the project's major outdoor open space, the
City considers this to be a less-than significant impact. (Discussion with J.
Haag and J. Baker, City of Dublin as documented on an e-mail dated 28
October, 2007)
6.2. Construction Noise
The proposed project is located in an undeveloped area near the eastern side
of the specific plan area. There are no new residential developments in
proximity to the project site but there are a few existing farmsteads which
include the south Anderson property on Croak Road south of the site, the
Croak Farmstead on Croak Road north of the site and the Braddock and
Logan site near the end of Croak Road. There is also the Branaugh property
east of the site.
The four existing farmsteads are located between 285 feet and 1225 feet from
the project site. The construction noise exposure of a particular farmstead will
depend on the location of the construction equipment, type of equipment,
duration of use and extent of any acoustical shielding from intervening terrain.
For example, the Croak Farmstead would be exposed to a maximum noise
level of 70 dBA from graders, presuming the grader is at the northwest corner
of the site and there is no acoustical shielding from intervening terrain. If the
grader is blocked from view, the noise level could be 10 to 20 dBA lower.
Maximum noise levels at the other farmstead locations would be 57 to
61 dBA, primarily due to increased distance. Regardless, construction noise
was identified as a potentially significant impact in the 1993 EIR as well as the
2002 and 2005 SEIRs. Adopted mitigation measures require the following:
Recommendation: Developers shall submit to the City a Construction
Noise Management Program consistent with MM 3.10/4.0 of the 1993
EIR. The program shall identify measures to be taken to minimize noise
impacts on existing planning area residents. In addition, Developer shall
comply with MM 3.10/5.0 which requires that when construction occurs
near residential areas, it should be limited to normal daytime hours to
minimize impact. Stationary equipment should be located as far away
from sensitive receptors as possible. This aspect (MM 3.10/5.0) may be
addressed as part of the Construction Noise Management Plan.
07-105-1_noise study Anderson at Fallon Village_FinaL 15janOB.doc
ROSEN
GOLDBERG
DER &
LEWITZ. INC
) 100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ~ Larkspur CA 94939 . Tel415 464 0150 ,. Fax 4154640155 . RGDLacoustics.com