The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.1 Anderson Pty CEQA CITY CLERK File # D~[Q][QJ-~~ If 2..0 -30 Iflo~55" "15"0 ~ .30 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2008 SUBJECT: PA 07-037 Anderson: CEQA Addendum, General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage I Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property located at 3457 Croak Road. Report Prepared by Je.ff Baker, SeniorPlanner ATTACHMENTS: I) Resolution adopting 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 Impact Report and adopting related statements of overriding considerations. 2) Resolution approving a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the 7 -acre residential portion of the Anderson property to Medium-High Density Residential. 3) Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with an amended Stage I Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property. 4) City Council Staff Report date July 17,2007 without Attachments 5) City Council Meeting Minutes from July 17,2007 6) Site Development Review project plans. 7) Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 12,2008 without Attachments 8) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from February 12,2008 9) Planning Commission Resolution recommending 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 Impact Report for the Anderson Residential project without Exhibits. COPIES TO: Applicant Property Owner Page 1 of 10 ITEM NO. 0./ G:\PA#\20D7\07-037 Anderson OPA SPA PD SDR\City Counci]\ccsr 3.4.08 Anderson gpa spa pd.doc C.- RECOMMENDA nON: /1.lr< ~172) 3) Nf/ 4) U{ 5) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: 10) Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council approve a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1-25 dulacre) without Exhibits. Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with an amended Stage I Development Plan and a Stage 2. Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property without Exhibits. II) 6) Open the public hearing; Receive Staff presentation; Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; Close public hearing and deliberate; Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution adopting 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 Impact Report and adopting related statements of overriding considerations; and b) Resolution approving a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property to Medium-High Density Residential; and Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD- Planned Development Rezone with an amended Stage I Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property; and Provide Staff with direction regarding the Affordable Housing Agreement and the number of affordable units that should be included on the Anderson property. 7) The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipated residential development of the Anderson property. The increase in the number of units associated with the proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the land use designation to Medium-High Density and allow 108-units would not have a fiscal impact as impacts are addressed through Impact Fees on a per unit basis. Page 2 of 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: r ) !---"\')ICi.,<. f.<~;::J\ . l~L'".n:~r _/ !.\:\~ r:fLl.O.v /1 SHE ;\c FNLH~E. .'/ I I~ i / \ i':-'o.""'~~).""'~/'> --: .l. .-"" (t,\\,\",' I (~l -...;,-,." --..2.~ .;. (I".-:........,~ ________1- "=-<"'. ~....~.......... . :X"_ r / ,\,\ \"'_ .,,,. c<q.'UH,l.\' ~ \l~" ~L 1.5-~li Background The 50.3+/- acre Anderson property is generally located north of Interstate 580 and east of Croak Road near the eastern City limits in Fallon Village and included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (please refer to Map 1 to the right). Access to the project site is provided via Croak Road and the Fallon Road interchange with 1-580. Please refer to Table 1 for a description of the surrounding uses. MaD 1: Anderson Vicinity MaD Table 1: Surrounding Land Uses LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN CURRENT USE 0.. LAND USE PROPERTY Project Site Planned Development (PD) Medium Density Residential Vacant North PD Low Density Residential Vacant South -- -- 1-580 East PD Medium Density Residential Vacant West PD Open Space Vacant The project site contains hillside terrain, with steeper slopes located in the northeasterly portion of the site and are primarily covered with grasslands with stands of trees in the southern portion of the property. The elevation of the site ranges from 375-feet to 515-feet above sea level. A former quarry is located on the northern 7-acre residential portion of the project site and an older single-family dwelling and several associated outbuildings exist on the southerly portion of the property. The Anderson property is currently vacant and includes a closed quarry that will be filled on the northern 7-acre residential portion of the site. The older single-family dwelling and associated outbuildings on the southern portion of the site would be demolished as part of the project. However, there is no development proposed on the southern 43 acres of the overall site at this time. Prior Planning Approvals In December 2005, a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 223-05), and Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance No. 32-05) were adopted by the City Council for all of Fallon Village which includes the Anderson property. The following General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations were adopted at that time for the Anderson property: Table 2: Existin General Plan/Eastern Dublin S Land Use Desi nation Medium Densit General Commercial/Cam o en S Total ecific Plan Land Use Designations Acrea e 7 ac 34.2 ac 9.1 ac 50.3 ac Page 3 of 10 Positano Affordable Housing Obligation Braddock & Logan's Positano development is located east of Fallon Road within the northern portion of Fallon Village (please refer to Map 2 to the right) and consists of 1,043 single-family detached residential units. Braddock & Logan prepared an Affordable Housing Proposal to address the affordable housing obligation for the Positano development. The Affordable Housing Proposal was presented to the City Council on October 18, 2005 and included construction of 88 affordable apartments on the 7-acre Anderson property to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing obligation for the Positano development. The City Council reviewed the proposal and directed Staff to work with the Applicant to integrate market-rate units as a part of the proposed 88 affordable units on the Anderson property. ~J;.;;!c'Jifi-/"" .--......... ~ ;:'Yr..i l~, .:1 ; 1 : ~{<~~'\ ___~ i :.j ,,.I '" ~ (,:""""" DUBLfS 0'-""-'0 ""'l'il<.1 , WA m.'U" "'''U',V,''''' l.lllO pi .;-+'[ III , PLEtlSA}Y!O.'/ Map 2: Positano Vicinity Map As a result, Braddock & Logan proposed a 108-unit project on the Anderson property to address the direction by the City Council to construct a mixed-income project. The 108-unit project would consist of the following: . 78 affordable units to satisfy a portion of the Inclusionary Zoning obligation for Positano; and . 10 affordable units to satisfy the [nclusionary Zoning obligation for the Anderson property; and . 19 market rate units; and . 1 manager's unit The proposed project (108 units) exceeds the maximum density permitted for the eXlstmg Medium Density (6.1-14 du/ac) land use designation. Therefore, in July 2007, City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and EDSP Amendment (SPA) Study for changing the residential land use designation to Medium-High Density (14.1-25 dulac) on the residential portion of the Anderson property (Attachment 4 and 5). Current Request The Applicant is currently requesting approval of the following: 1. GP A/SP A to change the land use designation of the 7 -acre residential portion of the property to Medium-High Density (14.1-25 dulac); and 2. Planned Development (PD) Rezone with Stage I Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the property. On February 12, 2008, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the requested entitlements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the GPA/SPA and PD Rezone with amended Stage I Development Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 8). In addition, the Applicant requested approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) permit to grade the overall 50.3+/- acre Anderson property and to construct a 108-unit apartment project and related site improvements on the 7-acre residential portion of the property. The Planning Commission approved the SDR subject to the City Council adopting the associated GP A/SP A and PD Rezone. Please see below for a discussion of the Planning Commission action. Page 4 of 10 ANALYSIS: General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal includes 88 affordable units on the Anderson property. As previously discussed, the City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant to create a mixed-income project that integrates market rate units into this proposed affordable project. Braddock & Logan is currently proposing to construct a 108-unit apartment project in order to address the Council's direction to create a mixed-income project. However, the residential portion of the Anderson property has an existing Medium Density (6.1-14 du/ac) land use designation which permits a maximum of 98 residential units (please refer below to Table 3). Braddock & Logan is currently requesting a GPA/SPA to change the land use designation for the residential site to Medium-High Density (14.1-25 du/ac) in order to accommodate the proposed 108-unit mixed income project. The residential portion of the Anderson property is located to the east of the Fallon Village Center which serves as the social and economic hub for Fallon Village (the Fallon Village Center is outline in blue on Map 3). The overall Fallon Village project area includes a variety of residential land use designations with higher residential densities focused primarily around the Fallon Village Center in order to activate the Village Center and promote a pedestrian oriented development. At the hub of the Fallon Village Center is a Neighborhood Square that is surrounded by a land use designation of Mixed Use,. which includes ground floor retail and residential units above, and Medium- High Density residential units. The proximity of the Anderson property to the Village Center, and the proposed density of development, will further promote the pedestrian orientation of the Village Center. The Anderson property will continue to provide a transition of land uses from the more intense Village Center to the less intense uses surrounding the Village Center. Min-Max Density 42-98 units 99-175 units ,",,~RRA ~J\, 19,4AC LDR~' 17.9 ..~ Fallon Village Center .. Map 3: Fallon Village Center The proposed General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 2 to this Staff Report. The proposed GP A1SP A would change the land use designation to Medium-High Density Residential (14.1-25 dulacre). Page 5 of 10 Planned Development Rezone Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment As stated above in the Background section, the project area was the subject of the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage I Development Plan implements the General Plan and EDSP policies. Therefore, it is necessary to amend the Stage 1 Development Plan in order to ensure consistency with the proposed GPA/SPA. The proposed Stage I Development Plan Amendment would change the land use of the 7 -acre residential portion of the Anderson property from Medium Density (6.1-14.0 dulac) to Medium-High Density (14.1-25 dulac) with an associated change to the site plan and densities as shown in Map 4 to the right. The proposed Stage I Development Plan Amendment is included as Attachment 3 of this Staff Report. Project Site Map 4: Stage 1 Site Plan Stage 2 Development Plan The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and applies to the northerly 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3) includes: I) statement of compatibility with Stage I Development Plan; 2) statement of proposed uses; 3) Stage 2 site plan; 4) site area and proposed densities; 5) development regulations; 6) architectural standards; and 7) preliminary landscaping plan. As stated above, the project site area that is subject to the Stage 2 Development Plan is the northerly 7- acre residential site. The proposed density of the site is Medium-High Density which is consistent with the proposed GP A1SP A and Amended Stage I Development Plan. The proposed site area and densities shown in Table 4 below are included as part of the proposed Stage 2 PD Ordinance. a e : ropose an se Proposed Stage 2 PD Land Use Plan Land Use Designation Gross Net Number Gross Net Acres Acres of Units Density Density Medium-High Density Residential 7.0 6.9 108 du 15.4 15.7 Total 7.0 6.9 108 du 15.4 15.7 T bl 4 P dL dU Residential site development standards generally include: minimum lot standards, setbacks, separation requirements between residential buildings, maximum lot coverage, and usable yard requirements. Residential Site Development Standards have been proposed for the multi-family residential development on the Anderson property. The standards in Table 5 below and associated notes have been prepared and are included as part of the proposed Stage 2 PD Zoning Ordinance for this project which is included in Attachment 3. Page 6 of 10 Table 5: Development Regulations Minimum Setbacks ,,~ . Building to Building 15' Building to Parking/Carport/Private 10' Street/Driveway Building to Public Street Right-of-Way 20' Maximum Lot Coverage 50% Minimum Common Usable Outdoor Space 100 sf per unit Maximum Building Height 45' and 3 stories Parking Spaces Required Residential Units I covered space plus I uncovered space per unit Leasing Office I uncovered space per 250 sf of office space A. Encroachments shall be allowed to project up to three feet into building separations and must be at least 36" from property line (or comply with UBC standards, whichever is more restrictive). See item B below. B. Encroachments include, but are not limited to: roof overhangs, eaves, architectural projections, fireplaces, log storage, media niches, balconies, bay windows, exterior stairs, window ledges, second floor overhangs, decks, porches, trellises, and air conditioning equipment. Air conditioning units cannot be in highly visible areas unless no other option exists. All utilities including air conditioning units are to be screened from view via walls, enclosures, roof placement, landscaping, etc. The proposed project meets the parking requirements established in the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.76.080.B). The parking standard for a multi-family apartment is a minimum of one covered space plus one unreserved/guest space per unit. Each unit within the proposed project is provided one covered space and one unreserved/guest space as required by the parking standards. The development standards referenced herein would become part of the Stage 2 Development Plan. Should this Applicant or any future Applicant propose modifications to these standards, a revised Stage 2 Planned Development would be required. A draft Resolution is included in Attachment 3 recommending the City Council approve an Amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the development of the 7-acre Anderson site for the development of 108 residential units. Planning Commission Action On February 12, 2008, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the requested entitlements including the GPA/SPA, PD Rezone with amended Stage I Development Plan and Stage 2 Development Plan, and Site Development Review Permit. The SDR contemplated construction of a 108-unit apartment project on the northern 7-acre portion of the Anderson property (Attachment 6). The proposed project includes II apartment buildings each with 9- 12 units per building. All units will be 2 bedroom/2 bathroom units consistent with the Applicant's Affordable Housing Proposal. The project will also include a community building with leasing office, general community room, fitness area, and related site improvements including a swimming pool, BBQ and picnic area, and play area with play structure. The project will include a total of 219 parking spaces including I covered reserved space and I uncovered unreserved space per unit. The Applicant also proposes grading the overall 50.3+/- acre property which includes the northern 7-acre residential site. Please refer to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 7) for a complete discussion of the SDR. Page 7 of 10 The Planning Commission had extensive discussion regarding the appearance of the proposed project and in particular the use of enhanced materials (Please refer to the Planning Commission Minutes included as Attachment 8). Much of this discussion was focused on the proposed application of the stone veneer at the base of the buildings. The Planning Commission considered focusing the stone material higher on the building to achieve greater visual impact from the project frontage. However, the Planning Commission ultimately decided not to alter the proposed application of the stone material at the base of the buildings. In addition, the Planning Commission discussed the need for a larger lawn area adjacent to the Community Building. The Planning Commission also discussed the Applicant's Affordable Housing Proposal and the affordable requirement for the Anderson property. As previously discussed, the Applicant's Affordable Housing Proposal includes 78 affordable units to satisfy a portion of the affordable housing obligation for the Positano development and 10 affordable units to satisfy the affordable housing obligation for the Anderson property (78 units x 12.5% = 10 units). The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council modify the Applicant's proposal. The Planning Commission recommends that the Applicant provide 4 affordable units to satisfy the affordable obligation for the Anderson property (please see Table 6 below) and further increase the mix of market rate and affordable units. Table 6: Affordable Housing Proposal Applicant's Affordable Housing Planning Commission Proposal Recommendation Unit Type Number of Units Income Level Number of Units Income Level 50% Moderate 50% Moderate Positano Affordable Obligation 78 units 20% Low 78 units 20% Low 30% Verv Low 30% Verv Low 50% Moderate 50% Moderate Anderson Affordable Obligation 10 units 20% Low 4 units 20% Low 30% Verv Low 30% Verv Low Market Rate 19 units -- 25 units -- Manager's Unit 1 unit -- 1 unit -- Total 108 units .- 108 units -- The Planning Commission's recommendation would eliminate 6 affordable units and further increase the mix of market rate and affordable units within the project. The proposed change in the number of affordable units would not impact the Applicant's Affordable Housing Proposal for the Positano development. As part of this action, Staff is requesting that the City Council provide Staff with direction regarding the proposed reduction of 6 affordable units on the Anderson property and the preparation of the Affordable Housing Agreement. Following this discussion, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum, approve the GPA/SPA, and adopt an Ordinance approving the PD Rezone. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council consider a modification to the affordable housing requirement for the Anderson property in order to achieve a greater mix of market rate and affordable units. The Planning Commission also adopted a Resolution approving the SDR with a condition (Condition 17) that requires the following changes to the exterior of the buildings: I) replace the shingle siding on all buildings with board and batten siding as requested by the Applicant; 2) extend the eaves on all buildings to a minimum of 24"; 3) replace the stone cap on the balconies on the rear elevations with a wood cap; and 4) shift the Community Building to the south and increase the lawn area Page 8 of 10 to the north of the Community Building. The Planning Commission approval of the SDR is subject City Council approval of the CEQA Addendum, GPAlSPA and PD Rezone. Development Agreement In accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Section 11.3. I), the Applicant shall enter into a Developmeni Agreement with the City. Staff is currently working with the Applicant to prepare this Development Agreement for the Anderson property. The Development Agreement will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council once the draft Agreement has been prepared. Affordable Housing Agreement As previously discussed, the Applicant's Affordable Housing Proposal includes 78 affordable units to satisfy a portion of the affordable obligation for the Positano development, 10 affordable units to satisfy the affordable obligation for the Anderson property, 19 market rate units and 1 manager's unit. Staff is currently working with the Applicant to prepare an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) for the Anderson project based on the direction from the City Council. This Affordable Housing Agreement will be reviewed by the City Council once the draft agreement has been prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The existing General Plan/Specific Plan land use designations for these properties were adopted by the City Council with the GPAlSPA for Fallon Village on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 223-05). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared for the Fallon Village GP A/SP A and certified by the City Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-05). The SEIR studied development at the midpoint of the residential density ranges. Since the 108-unit project exceeds the anticipated number of units that were studied as a part of the SEIR, a CEQA Addendum has been prepared for the proposed GPA/SPA to change the land use designation to Medium-High Density. The CEQA Addendum studied the development of 108-units rather than the midpoint of the proposed density range. Therefore, development on the Anderson property would be limited to a maximum of 108-units unless further environmental review is completed. The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there would be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Fallon Village Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH#2005062010) certified by the Dublin City Council on December 6, 2005 (Resolution 222-05). The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and no new information has arisen for this project during the preparation of this Initial Study that would require further environmental review. Therefore, an Addendum to the SEIR was prepared documenting these facts. CONCLUSION: The City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units into the proposed 88 unit affordable project on the Anderson property. The Applicant has proposed a 108-unit mixed income project consisting of 88 affordable units, 19 market rate units, and I manager's unit, which exceeds the permitted density of the project site. Therefore, the Applicant has proposed a GP A/SPA and amended Stage I Development Plan to change the land use designation to Medium-High Density in order to permit up to 108 units on the Anderson property. The Applicant is also Page 9 of 10 requesting approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for the northern 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property. The Site Development Review permit for the 108-unit apartment project is consistent with the proposed GP AlSP A and PD Rezone. Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum, and approve the GP AlSP A and Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage I Development Plan, and a Stage 2 Development Plan as shown in Attachments 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Staff is further recommending that the City Council provide Staff with direction regarding the Planning Commission recommendation that the number of affordable units should be reduced on the Anderson property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: I) Open the public hearing; 2) Receive Staff presentation; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close public hearing and deliberate; 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution adopting 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 Impact Report and adopting related statements of overriding considerations; and b) Resolution approving a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment to change the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property to Medium-High Density Residential; and 6) Waive the first reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with an amended Stage I Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property; and 7) Provide Staff with direction regarding the Affordable Housing Agreement and the number of affordable units that should be included on the Anderson property. Page 10 of 10 1~~I'1 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING 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 IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (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 since 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 (ED PO), 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 Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. In connection with the 2002 project approval, the City Council adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the Anderson project area; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the current applicant, Braddock and Logan on behalf of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (ED PO), 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 Braddock & Logan Services, submitted an application in 2007 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Eastern ~~:t~'p~,ir~f4'n ~ ~~ . ATTACHMENT 1 ~ J;? oj oW1 Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezone with Amended Stage I Development Plan, and Stage 2 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. 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 units and density of what was previously . studied for the Anderson property. Based on the proj ecl' s current General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 dulac) 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 dulac); and WHEREAS, an Initial Study dated January 2008, and included as Exhibit B to this resolution, was prepared to describe the changes .to the existing approved project and 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 of the 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 project 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 substantial 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 Addendum was considered by the Planning Commission together with the 1993 Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the 2002 SEIR for the East Dublin Property Owner and the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on February 12, 2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council approval of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the prior ErRs identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area and the Fallon Village area, some of which impacts would apply to the Anderson project; therefore, approval of the project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and 20f3 .d%cXI1 WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated March 4, 2008 was submitted to the City Council analyzing the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the project applications; and WHEREAS, before making a decision on the project, the City Council considered the Addendum with the 1993 Program EIR for the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment, the 2002 SEIR for the East Dublin Property Owner's and the 2005 Fallon Village SEIR (which are available for review and on file in the Community Development Department); and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the Addendum: 1. The Dublin City Council reviewed and considered the Addendum prior to approving the Project. 2. The Initial Study/Addendum determined that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment beyond those identified and mitigated in the prior EIRs. None of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary, as documented in the Addendum and related rnitial Study. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt a CEQA Addendum, attached as Exhibit A and related rnitial Studv, attached as Exhibit B, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Anderson project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2007\07-037 Anderson GPA SPA PD SDR\City Council\CC Rcso CEQA Addendum.doc 30f3 . . 11 16( 1'7 CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY PA 07-037 February 12, 2008 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91 103064). The certified ErR 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 Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the first-tier certified EIR. A Supplemental ErR was prepared for the I, I20-acre Fallon Village portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area in 2002 to assess the impacts of adopting a Stage I Development Plan and annexing these properties to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) (SCH # 20010521 14). The SErR wa~ 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 I Development Plan for the southerly portion of the Fallon Village area. The second SEIR (SCH #2005062010) 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 property into this project This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 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 I,I20-acre Fallon Village portion of Eastern Dublin in 2002. The approvals included a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment, PD- Planned Development prezoning/Stage I Development Plan, annexation to the City and DSRSD and detachment from the Livermore Area Parks and Recreation 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 lA . . . 59/cVJ1 In 2005, a second SEIR was certified by the City of Dublin to 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 Development Plan for the Positano development on the northerly 470 acres of the Fallon Village area. The current application includes amendments to the Dublin General 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 Property 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 were 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 200 I, 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 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 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 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 impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential Page 2 . . G~C<11 new and/or substantially intensified impacts required review at an ErR level and concluded that a Supplemental ErR should be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR was updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage I Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental ErR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental ErR, referred to in the attached 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 SErR 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 SErR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. The 2002 SEIR is hereby incorporated into this Addendum by reference. 2005 Supplemental EIR. rn 2005, a second Supplemental ErR (identified as the "2005 Supplement" in the attached rnitial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SErR (see City Council Resolution No. 222-05). The second SErR 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 previouslyidentified for the Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the previously analyzed project and circumstances included, but were not limited to: I) 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, 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 site 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 SErR, 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 the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage I Development Plan amendments. Additionally, the 2005 Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance and mitigation measures they would employ at a Project-level. The 2002 SEIR is incorporated herein by reference Currerit CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Add~ndum 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 ,-----.--- . . -110</1 Specific Plan Amendment, Stage I and Stage 2 Planned Development 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 determined 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 subsequent 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 proposes an increase in the number of dwellings assumed in the prior EIRs; however, the increase is offset by a reduction in the number of dwellings developed on the Positano site by the 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 property is anticipated for future development under the existing approvals, including the existing PD-Stage I Development Plan. Any proposed grading must be consistent with the existing approvals as well as the General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and all applicable adopted mitigation measures. , I. This General Plan Amendment/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Ame.ndment proposes to redesignate land slated for 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. The PD-Stage 1 Development Plan proposes an increase of 38 dwellings on the 7-acre site, from 70 to 108 dwellings, resulting in a 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 substantial 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 EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous Page 4 . . 8 ;fo<l7 EJR 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 EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent 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 SErRs. 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 subsequent 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 environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The rnitial Study, Eastern Dublin ErR, the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 SElR 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 . . 1 9;f ~ 1"7 Initial Study Project: Anderson Property Project City File No. PA 07-037 Lead Agency: City of Dublin January 2008 Attachment IB j . . /01<=RJ7 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 Environmental Impacts.................................................................. 25 Environmental Impacts.................. ........ ............................ ....................... ............. 26 Discusson of Checklist ........................................................................................... 36 1. Aesthetics..................................................................................................... 36 2. Agricultural Resources ............................................................................... 40 3. Air Quality................. .......... ........ ............ ........... ....... ................. .................4 I 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 .. .... .... ... .... ... ...... .......... ..... ........ .......... ....... ...... ... ... ... ........ ...... ... ..... ...6 I 12. Population and Housing .......................................................................... 66 13. Public Services.................. ........ ....... ..... .................. ............................ ....... 67 14. Recreation... .......................... .......... ....... ................... .....,.... ................ ....... 69 15. Transportation/ Traffic............ ......... .......... ............ ........... .......... .............7 I 16. Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................76 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance .......................................................79 Initial Study Preparers ........................................................................................... 8 I Agencies and Organizations Consulted ............................................................... 81 References............................................................................................................... 8 I Appendix................................................................................................................. 83 . . If ~q~7 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 99 21000 et seq., ) and the CEQA Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, 9915000-15387). 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 action 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 entitlements are referred to herein as the "Project." Prior Environmental Impact Reports This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental 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 Amendment 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 Seismicity; 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 adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 2 January 2008 . . J~ 12)7 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 (EDPO) 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 ED PO 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 t11e 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 EIR analyses; the fact that annexation and pre-zoning actions were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and the fact that the mmexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the Project Area in the Eastern Dublin ElR. AItl10ugh 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 EIR was updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That Supplemental EIR, 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 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. 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 ;-1'''' '.-( ."f;~r . <"'1' . /3 '12,., , :1 ;:( \ 1~\ 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 site 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 the proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments. Additionally, the 2005 Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance and mitigation measures they would employ at a Project-level. 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 EIRs referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development Deparbnent, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568. Applicant/Contact Person Braddock and Logan Services, Inc., Atb1: 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, on the east by property owned by City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 4 January 2008 . . Ii.( e;fcX 17 the Righetti parb1ers 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 tl1at fills with water during winter months. A number of native and non-native significaJ1t 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 EDGPA for tI1e 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning area. The original EDGP A proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the soutl1west portion of tI1e GPA 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 within the larger 6,920-acre EDGPA. 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 tI1e undeveloped planning area witl1 a mixed-use urban community. Atbuildout, the EDGPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential witl1 a 100-acre minimum parcel size. Approximately 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 plalmed. 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 . '. ;',j. . '5~~11 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 tI1e new commercial space was planned for tI1e Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact villages witl1 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 original6,920-acre planning area and land use designations, and 3,328 acre Specific Plan area, botl1 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 RP A alternative reduced tI1e GP A area by 2,744 acres, provided for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of tI1e EDGP A area only within the Dublin Sphere of Influence. 2002 Prezoning and Annexation. In 2002, an application was filed with tI1e City by a number of owners in tI1e Eastern Dublin area to annex tI1e area to the City and tI1e Dublin San Ramon Services District area (DSRSD). Applications were also filed for prezoning to the PD-Plalmed Development Zoning District and a related Stage 1 Development Plan to guide future development of tI1e Fallon Village area. The annexation and prezoning were approved. These actions 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 tI1e general land use types, densities and locations established in tI1e 1993 Eastern Dublin project approvals. 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 intensity was established by defined floor area ratio. In approving tI1e 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan, the City furtl1er 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, tI1e City retained a team of consultants to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for tI1e Project area. The RMP implements mitigation measure SM-BIO-l adopted with tI1e 2002 annexation and prezoning approvals. The purpose of tI1e 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 developing necessary protection and/ or management metl1ods. The RMP was accepted by tI1e Dublin City Council in September 2004 and was used as one of the key documents in formulating tI1e amended 2005 Stage 1 Development Plan. 2005 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. These amendments proposed to include all of tI1e Fallon Village Project area into the Eastern Dublin Specific City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 6 January 2008 . . 1fo1c{)/1 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 tI1e northerly portion of tI1e Fallon Village area. The 2005 Project also included WilliaJTIson 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 tI1e Anderson Property into five smaller parcels of land. The current proposal is located on tI1e 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 aJTIend 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 apartment 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 apartment units along with a centrally located community building that would contain a leasing office, fimess 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 . . 11 ~~II .y_?~- " along the southerly boundary of the site (Monterosso A venue). 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 Stage 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 uses envisioned in this portion of Dublin. Table 1, below, summarizes the proposed Stage 1 Development Plan land use designations and compares this with tI1e 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 NetAc. 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 exterior 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 . . 1&1on'7 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, COlmects 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 soutl1ern 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 witl1 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 treatment 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 treatment 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 otl1er 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 cuI vert located in Plamling Area H in the Dublin Ranch area just west of Fallon Road. Local drainage facilities would consist of smaller diameter pipes cOlU1ecting to the larger regional system. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 9 January 2008 , ~.;; . I 'i; 2-J '1 . Water Ouality Protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. Proiect 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 property. 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 plaJU1ed land uses, roads and utilities. The majority of the grading would be filling in an existing quarry that is surrounded predominantly by near vertical hillside slopes. The fill would create an approximately 5cacre 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 proposed 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 conditions. Slope stability would be ensured by implementing engineered fills and cuts as specified 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 grading concept is to excavate dirt from tI1e 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 City 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, consistent with the EDSP, and to create a smootl1 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 geotechnical engineer's recommendations. Proposed contours along ilie northern edge of the overall 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 . . r2():!( 2-1 'I 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 committed 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 from 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 aIternati ve methods approved by the Ci ty 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 the inclusionary housing requirement for tI1e 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 . ". . ,2/ itX''l '. Public Art. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the project developer will install public art on the Site. Preliminarily, the artwork would be located near the community building in the approximate 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 would 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: o 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. o Amendment to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for the same reason as above. o PD Rezoning/ Amendment to the existing Stage 1 Development Plan and adoption of a Stage 2 Development Plan. o Site Design Review, Development Agreement and a Housing Agreement for the 7 -acre site o A conceptual grading plan for the southerly 42 acres of the Property. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 12 January 2008 dD>.1d 17 Pacific Ocean LMIIO' o 1--1 1 ( \ '-""'.-..... " , , ,., . .. '-, lCalifomia') --.... '," 'u I -\ _.I. ,......~,........'u...... EXHIBIT I-SITE LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY 12-07 - 2007 13:21 :27 acrabtree P:\ 19313\plann;n \In,1iaIStudy\EXHl -S;teLacatian.dw IDAcKAY lk SOillPS t~ .......ti """'01'; ~lOI.~ llnlll'!>-O<lO ------- ..- ..- !:l :il ~ ~ 8 DUBLIN 1.580 "'~ ~ &,"'; <) i" ~!:l ;::0 0'" '" EXHIBIT 2-SITE CONTEXT CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY ..- !:l o '" ~ ~ GL1iN;ON DR DUBLIN BOULEVARD " ~,co\J><;; ------- "O#~~ ~,cil ..- ;<8::{ 2/7 --- ..- PLEASANTON CENTRAL PARKWAY PROJECT SITE I o~s I ,,~~'~ I~I .n ..0.... COLLIER CAN ON " 1-580 o ~~ '" 12-07-2007 13:22:59 ocrabtree P:\ 1931.3 lonnin InitiolStud \EXH2-SiteContext.dw . NOATH NTS mAClCAl &: SOIllpS ~ ........IG ~"""I .........,....u. 111:1117.1.0.,,, d:2'-1f!{ o? I '1 PROlECr SITE }!!!!O~t~ teD/ec/ion ;'\ . '. ~ RIGHErJI PARTNERS, LP' DDC#-1992-0753<13 APN 90p-OOOI-OOS-02 ~ l!l' ~I I~' ~ . I lil . I ~ II ~~!~ fBJ PAIUNERS, L P I - ~ SERIES NO 2OOI_029949~' II APN 905-0027-004 I ~t.8~:~:: ROW I _ ,~POOTlON or CROAJ( RO.I.O ~~'TOBE,t&.N()ON[O I )':.li i .....' . .~" . CROAK ROAD 5' · .J - ~--r _'"'In... ~1.24'29 ~(R 'w.Ji" BI<<Tt CHENG, CHEN 0: CHEN aOCM 1398-265<1111 DOCHlgSS-22J918 - APN 985-0027-002 ~ --- THE ANilE NSECONO . F~ILYDO~~I.~ ~:;~;RSfiIP., . '1' . DOC' 20 -451558 OOCI 9 396153 ..','.....~".'i: APN 905- 0 1-006:03 __- />PH 985 27-005,'.' ~ PARCBU ~ 12.17:i "AG. .;!;",:; 1.9" ~ FliTllRE - --'- ~ -'+- - DUBLIN BOl7LBv." . .........-. ~ ----t-- PARCEL 5... 10.924f 'Ae' I I '. H '':;1 =1 I J . I I '.EX1STINO~ . ~07.2a' W8OQ.68'fiIit .,' _ "~"'~"'~"~ 402.40' ~ N6lJ'3J'1 .--~:.-:.~...~ INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 1-5ao STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 3-TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP . NORTH CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY 0' , 200' 400' 800' SCALE: 1" =400' 12-07-2007 13:39: 10 ocrobtree P:\ 19313 plonnin \lniliolStud \EXH3-A rovedPorcelMop.dw mAClCAl8t somps (.....(0'; .......... wo..:...... ""(.lI.OHlQ<<~ "''''rn-OOOQ , -. ! t'-';~ .." ., ~l'~ 026 o;f d I '1 L os EXISTING GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE Use Gross Acree e Gross Densi Units/SF M ~e~1~:ti~lensity 7.0 ac. 10 du/ac 70 du GC/CO L os PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE ~ ~ts/~ Medium High 70 15.4 du/ac 108 du M Density Residential . ac. GC/CO EXHIBIT 4-EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN & EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY * NORTH NTS 12-07 - 2007 13:45:08 aeroblree bleAY & somps 100lfR') "'--"' ~ 1'\LI901O<.LO (Inlm._ I r ----j , I , I -~ I I I I I -<10 '1 eXl 'iI lil~Q ll:1:::o.: ~iil~' , ,- ..0 ~I;,~ "~ z_ -> "0- Q~~ O<:l'::i 0- " > c ~. .'- ..,,,.,,,,,,~t{> ,", '~'.:" ... ,".',;' ''''~~W:;~': ....::::::-,~...... ...., ~~ ',' \'~"-', UNIT SUMMARY @ @ Size of Unit (Sq. Ft.) 984 SF Total Number ofUnits 36 LAND USE SUMMARY Land Use Designation Gross Net Number Gross Net Acres Acres of Units Density Density Medium High Denisty 7.0 6.9 108 du 15.4 dulac. 15.7 dulac. Residential 984 SF 72 2 108 @D Communi Buildin Community Area/PooI E ui ment Room Office S ace TOTAL COMMUNlTY BUILDING PHASING 1820 sf The Anderson Property will be developed in one phase. 400 sf 2220 sf EXHIBIT 5-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN * NOATH 50' 100' 200' , CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY 0' , 12-07-2007 13:51: 14 ocrobtree P:\ 1 9313\plonning\lnilioISludy\ EXH5 - PD2-DevelopPlon.dwg SCALE: 1"=100' mACKAY &: somps [IOCII$. "'--" ~ ...~....u. CIl'~IIJ:>-"OQ . ;, ~:. 1"~"?~~,' ',_. : ....,.~' :~ ~:\:. ,.:.1 A\~i1~ !}1f~/7 REAR BUILDING ELEV ATrON FRONT BUll,DING ELEVATION SIDE BUILDING ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT 6 - PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEV A TrONS CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY 12-07- 2007 13:56: 18 aerablree P:\ 19313\planning\lniliaI5Iudy\EXH6-ExleriarElevalion.dwg mACICAY & somps noun ~ SUOItltJ'!S f\l'~" ('r..lm-_ T I ~I ~ ~I z '" I. QiSr-{b< '7 " ., c' , '. ~I CITY OF DUBLIN ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY 12-07-2007 * NORTH 0' 75' 150' 300' , SCALE: 1" = 150' 13:57:55 ocrabtree P:\ 19313\plann;ng\lnilioISludy\ EXH7 -GrodingUtil;tyPlan.dwg IllACKAY 8t somps !1OCO(.r; ~.,. _"'"' 0\.l40<01OOo.G< I'nl"->_"ilO EXHIBIT 8 - PROPOSED ANDERSON SITE GRADING CITY OF DUBLIN .. ANDERSON PROPERTY INITIAL STUDY " -$ , I !----- ---------1 rl ~ Z ll...1 . ~ 151 u 0:::' n.. ',,\ '":-...,, _.,.~~ 0' , 200' SCALE: 12-20-2007 07:44:35 jlerrel P:\ 19313\plonning\lnitioIStudy\EXH8-SiteGrodingPlon.dwg 02-Cf 1'd</7 NORTH 400' 800' 1"=400' mACl{Ay Ik som,s .1UaJIS ...-0\ ~OQOS ~(lk.~ ,nSlln.~1CI . . 20 '102/7 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 Zorung 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: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 3. Contact person: Jeff Baker, Dublin Plaruung Department (925) 8336610 4. Project location: East of Croak Road and north of the I-580 freeway 5. Project contact person: Braddock and Logan Services, Inc, (Attn: Mr. Jeff Lawrence) 4155 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 201 DanvilIe, 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 Study/Anderson Property PA 07.037 Page 21 January 2008 . . 311~/1 o Encroachment permits (Dublin) o Notice of Intent (Water Resources Control Board) o 404 Permits (US Army Corps of Engineers) o Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish and Game) o Permits from San 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 . . d;;< 1&1'7 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 Utili ties / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 23 January 2008 . . Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. _ I find that tI1e proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A 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 tl1e earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. .-L I find tl1at although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wiII.not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the 2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact report and the2005 Supplemental Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report wiII~1iared. SIgnature: ~.A- Date: :2/I,hf Printed Name: 1P:ft: Jl.wta- For: 0.,...,;' l>>8/.-J/lJ 33 ~ c</1 City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 24 January 2008 . . 3-41c:2/ry 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 mpture zone), or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the 1993 EIR, and/ or the 2002 SEIR, and/ or the 2005 SEIR, and/ or for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the Ci ty 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 "potentiall y 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 . ':." . J3~c911 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) Conflict 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) . 3(, :; dl'7 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impacl MitiQation 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. 1 5064.5? (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 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substaniial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 6) . :31r;f cQl( Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitil2ation 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 . . 3e-1 <91'1 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 materiais 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 Signiricant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitipalion 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, induding 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 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (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, induding through ,the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of slllface 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 stOlmwater 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 IOO-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) . 3010'(/7 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitioation X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 r Page 30 January 2008 . h) Place within a 100-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: 1, 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 ill: 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 ground borne 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) . 40 "1 dJ/7 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitia-atian 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 . . 4110211 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 airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive 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. Pnblic Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associnted 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 performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2) Fire protection Police protection School s Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitiuation 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. resnlt 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) . LtcX :1 0< 1'7 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impacl With Impact Mitioation 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 plani or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal oreliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? . 4~1d/7 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 34 January 2008 . . If 41~1'7 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 Mitioation 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 Department, 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 . . 451 ~/7 Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting , The Project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern Dublin 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 sloping 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 associated 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 I-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, located 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 I-580 Freeway. There are no public parks, trails, public vistas or otl1er 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 Plalming Area. Implementing Policy C.2 in Section 2.1.4 of tl1e General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Furtl1er, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects 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 of land in the eastern Dublin area. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 36 January 2008 . . 4b1d(/7 Easte1'11 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 (IM 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. . Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plal1 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 (IM 3.8/D) to a less-than-significal1t 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 (IM 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 7/1 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 viewsheds. 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 , , . . 411o?J{ , . 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 open 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. Proiect Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result 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 include grading of ilie northerly 7-acre portion of ilie 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 been 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 Mitigation 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 by the existing hill immediately south of the Anderson Site, although some of the roof peaks my be visible from motorists using I-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 . . 4g ~O?n 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 ElR, 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 IM 3.8 B and D) and 2005 SE1R. 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 sceruc 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 EIR 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 "".:7'~;;..-' . . 49 '1.f9 ) 7 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/Band includes mitigation to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Project includes residential land use, as assumed in prior EIRs. The proposed Development Plan shows the dwellings can be accommodated consistent with adopted mitigation me"asures and EDSP policies. No new or more severe impacts have been identified in this Initial 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 Ordinance. A number of other ornamental trees are proposed to be planted as part of tl1e 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 additional light 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 Initial 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 spillover 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 (see 2005 SEIR Figure 3.11.) City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 40 January 2008 . . 5010<17 Regulatory framework Eastern Dublin General Plan. Implementing Policy C.3 in Section 2.1.4 for the Eastern Extended Planning Area requires a determination that "timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands." Eastern Dublin ElR. The Eastern Dublin ElR 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 SEIR 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 urbal1ization of any existing agricultural zoning, would not conflict with a WiIliaJTIson Act Agreement, since none exist on the Property, and would not conflict witl1 tl1e 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 al1d the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Previous 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 ,. . . !511~ J 1 .,. '," . Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 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 remained significant and unavoidable. . Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG and NOx (IM 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, IM 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 (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require 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 mitigations, mobile source emission, other than carbon monoxide emissions, continued to be significant and unavoidable. The 2005 SEIR contains the following supplemental air quality mitigation measures. . Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-l, for construction 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 increases 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 olliers. Even willi Eastern Dublin EIR 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 implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11/E regarding 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 . . 562102/7 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 IM 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 SElRidentified 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 EIR 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-l 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 . . 5'3'1,;:(11 development project would need to contain 510 or more apartment units in order to have a significant air quality impact. Since the proposed Anderson Project would contain a net increase of 38 apartments, this impact would be less-than- significant. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air 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 concentrations 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 containing two biotic habitats: Ungrazed Non-Native Grasslands and Ponds (see 2005 SEIR, pages 135 and 138). The Site is characterized by California annual grassland with dominant plant species being annual grasses, Italian ryegrass, wild barley, salt grass, 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 residual dry herbaceous vegetation in the ungrazed grassland area provides cover for small mammals, reptiles, and birds and additional seed supply for foraging birds 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 (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis), has colonized the periphery of these ponds; the proportion of open aquatic habitat to emergent vegetation varies widely with both seasonal and annual fluctuations in water level. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 44 January 2008 . . 54 '12/7 Special-status species and habitats The three previous EIRs 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 Si te 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 Sal1 Joaquin kit fox on this Property. Previous ElRs The regulatory framework for this Project includes previous EIRs and regulations for stream protection. Eastern Dublin EIR. 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 3.7/ A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plal1s and development of a grazing mal1agement 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 3.7/5.0 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 (IM 3.7/ 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 (IM 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 . . 5S':/d1'1 \ -- . Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance. The Eastern Dublin ElR 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 al1d California horned lizard. The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. 2002 Supplement. This EIR identified a large number of supplemental biological mitigation measures for tl1e entire Fallon Village project area, identified as Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-l through SM-BIO-45. The supplemental mitigation 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 EIRs. Supplemental mitigation measures are: . Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-l 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 (measured by acreage) at an off-site location acceptable to the City. . Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 requires that if avoidance is infeasible, then mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. . Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 requires individual developers of parcels to create and/ or 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 persistence of a breeding population. . Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 requires developers of individual parcels to acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat 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 . . 5(, ~&J 7 . 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? NI. 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 al1d no impacts would result. As identified in the previous EIRs and in the most recent H.I. 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 . ,',.. . ~5/7'12-11 limited to loss of approximately 1.24 acres of breeding habitat on the Project Site (2005 SEIR, p.179). The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies 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 identified in the H. T. Harvey Report, the Project applicant will undertake the following action to ensure that EDSP policies and EIR mitigation measures. will be 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 U.s. Fish & Wildlife Service, an approximate 3.72-acre aquatic habitat and foraging area will be created. . A qualified biologist will be present on the 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 Site and relocated to the new habitat area. . Other steps will be taken as detailed in the Harvey Report. In response to existing biological mitigation measures and as part of the Biological Opinion issued by the U.s, Fish & Wildlife Service for tI1e 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 Dublin area, impacts associated with loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats 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? LS. 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 applicant for the Anderson Project will provide suitable off-site wetland habitat and foraging area on the Brown Ranch. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 48 January 2008 . . 581217 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 aJ1d 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 ilie larger Anderson Property, south of ilie Stage 1 application area. None of these structures are identified as historic sites in the Eastern Dublin ElR (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 Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 49 January 2008 . . 50, ~ 2F7 . Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 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 tI1e overall Fallon 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 on 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 tI1at construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/ or paleontological resources on 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 during site dishlrbance; 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 IM .9/B, the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the Project as may be appropriate. No additional impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts are therefore anticipated. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered on the Anderson Property during grading and construction activities. At the time tl1e 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 Guidelines 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 disturbance of human remains and no new mitigation measures are required. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 50 January 2008 . . 601217 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-l 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-l 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 3.9/ 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 ,- . . 0/12/'7 . Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (1M 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. · Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 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/ 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 (IM 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 aJ1d on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas. . Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/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 (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant 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-l deals with grading of steeper slopes on 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. Proiect Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. Although the Project is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 52 January 2008 . . o 021 '2-1 7 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 3.6/K). 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 si te-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 . . 0,3%.2-17 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 adjacent to the I-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 during 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 aJ1d hazardous materials. · Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-l requires preparation 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 removal of identified hazardous conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area prior to future development on properties. . Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3a requires Additional research for the former gas station site north and west of Croak Road to obtain information with regard to operation, demolition, and removal of the former gasoline service station. Additionally, a limited subsurface investigation shall be conducted for the EBJ parcel and adjacent areas of the Anderson and Chen/Tseng properties to better 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 Zo'ne 7 Water Agency and in accordance with all applicable regulations. . Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3g states that when, or prior to, the existing structures are demolished in the Fallon Village area, all existing septic systems City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 54. January 2008 . . (,~ 12-17 and associated leach fields shall be pumped out and removed under permit from the Alameda County Health Department. Proiect 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 01' 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 rernediate 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 materials 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 Califomia 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 SElR, no new supplemental impacts relating to aircraft operations were found to exist when the EDSP was amended in 2005 thal1 were identified in the Eastern Dublin ErR 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 )., . . &5,:/ :?J 1 ,. g) Intelference with an emergenClj 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 tl1erefore result. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, 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 EIR and, with adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, impacts related to wildland fire would be less-than- significant. These mitigation measures include Mitigation Measure 3.4/6.0, requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire stations and other facilities in Eastern Dublin, Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 requiring llse 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 are included in the proposed Anderson Project. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Project Site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas 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 discharges 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 Alameda County. Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), 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 processes, 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 coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Fral1cisco Bay. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water PrograJTIs. These recommendations include policies that City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 56 . January 2008 . . (p ~ ~2/'7 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 treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, 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), al1d 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 # 060001-0115C). More detailed information on hydrology and surface water quality is contained in Chapter 4.4 of the 2005 SElR. Previous ElRs 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 , , . . ~'1 ~ 2-/1 . Supplemental Impact SD-l found that surface water quality standards had been updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. Mitigation Measure SD-l 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 and 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 witl1 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 reviewed 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. Proiect 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 PrograJTI 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 quality 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. No 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 since 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. As identified in Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0, and as identified in subsection U a," above, the Project will include features to minimize surface and groundwater pollution, consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Program and City of Dublin standards. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? LS. New impervious surfaces would be added to the. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 58 January 2008 . . 091'2-17 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 sUlface 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 stormwater runoff. And consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR 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 lOG-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 . . 69 ~211 by FEMA. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study and no impact would result with regard to this 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 measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Initial 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 southerly 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 Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), both of which were adopted in 1993. The General Plan and EDSP presentIydesignate 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 land use regulations as applied City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 60 January 2008 . . '10 12-J1 to the Site iliat 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. Proiect Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. N one of the Ci ty 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 I-580, which reduces the exposure of the site to noise from traffic on I-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 (AIA) 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 . . 1/ 12-1'7 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 1-580 freeway, to tl1e south of the site, one site along Croak Road in the northwest corner of the Site and a third location located 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 f1yover was 63 dBA with the loudest airplane generating an Lmax of 83 dBA. The number of planes includes only those f1yovers that generated an Lmax of at least 63 dBA since airplanes with noise levels below this threshold are difficult to accurately identify. Table 2. Short-Term Noise Measurement Results Location Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA Leo LlO Lso L,o CNEL At northwest corner of 1:00 P.M. - site, first fioor 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 fioor 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 fioor of 3:30 PM 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 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. Source: RGDL Acoustics, 2007 The 1993 EIR addresses aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft noise is identified as an insignificant impact in this document (1M 3.10/ C). Based upon City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 62 January 2008 . . 102 12J7 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 f1yover 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 AlA (the Project Site is within the AI A) will need to have full disclosure regarding the presence of fI yovers. 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+ n 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 RFTA, 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 . . " . 73 '12-1"1' .: Previous EIRs Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number 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 (IM 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 reduce impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/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 SEIR. The 2002 Supplement contains three supplemental mitigation measures dealing with noise impacts, as follows: . Supplemental Mitigation Measure NOISE-21imits heavy truck traffic to designated arterial roads and truck routes in the Fallon Village area. 2005 SEIR. The SEIR prepared in 2005 contains the following supplemental noise mitigation measures: · Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-l requires 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 requires 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 noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in a substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels. ? LS. The 2005 SElR shows that the Project Site would be exposed to a CNEL of between 60 and 65 dBA from traffic on I-580. However, the noise contours in the 2005 SEIR do not account for the large earthen berm to the south that provides significant acoustical shielding from noise generated by vehicles using the I-580 freeway. 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 . . '!t--l12 I 7 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 I-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 groundbome vibration or groundbome 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 measures 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 . ~. ,~:' ( , '~I;: . 15~'2)7 . :( 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. Over 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 Bay Area, Alameda County and Dublin. Table 4. Regional, County and Dublin Total Population (Pop) & Household (HH) Projections 2005 2015 2025 Pop. HHs Pop. HHs Pop. HHs Region 7,096,100 2,583,080 7,730,000 2,819,030 8,389,600 3,059,130 Alameda 1,505,300 543,790 1,635,700 589,780 1,776,900 643,030 Co. Dublin 41,200 13,440 56,800 19,070 69,200 23,770 Source: ABAG Proiections 2007 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 Plal1 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 . . "1t 12-17 ,r Proiect 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 Department. The Department 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 Department. . 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 Eas.tern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 67 January 2008 . . 7712-/7 . Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate 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 approval. · 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 work 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 persOlmel 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 into 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. Neither the 2002 nor the 2005 SEIRs contain supplemental mitigation measures related to fire protection. Proiect Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of a residential development on the Anderson Property 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-tlzan-significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 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 Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 68 January 2008 . . '1c31'2/7 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 EIR. 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 Department 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 tI1e southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of tI1e Project area. Emerald Glen Park consists of approximately 23 acres of land and provides a wide range of recreation and open space aJTIenities 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 5.5-acre City neighborhood park is planned northwest of the Site as well. A major sports park is pi aimed for the northwest corner 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 ,,:.'..' . . -r912J7 ~: Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Previous ElRs Eastern Dublin EIR. 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 other outdoor facilities in Eastern 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 each 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, adoption 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 establishment 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, integrated trail system that allows safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate trail and staging areas. 2002 SElR. 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 al1l1exation of the Project area to. tl1e City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the reorganization proposal, the City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation facilities 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 services provided by the City of Dublin. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 70 January 2008 . . go ~2)7 No supplemental park and recreation impacts were identified in the 2005 SElR. The Project developers will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures contained in the previous EIRs. Proiect 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 development on the Anderson property will be subject to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, 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 I-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 I-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 07-037 Page 71 January 2008 . . 8/1217 Existing transit service Transit service to the Project area is provided by the following: Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels)."Wheels" is the fixed-route transit service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LA VTA) 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 and the Livermore Transit Center at approximate 30-minute headways on weekdays between 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 afternoon service at 30-minute headways. Both routes 12 and 20 provide service along I-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 provides 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 aI"ld 12:45 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 studies of potentially extending BART lines to Livermore are being conducted. The studies also will examine alternative means of improving transit service to Livermore in the BART 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 westbow1d in the morning, and run eastbound in the evening. There is one ACE station in Pleasanton near the intersection of Bernal Avenue and Pleasanton Avenue. Livermore has two ACE stations, one in Downtown . near the Livermore Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection and the other on Vasco Road, at the Vasco Road/Brisa Street intersection. In the 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 EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including ilie following mitigation measures . Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of 1-580 to a level of insignificance. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 72 January 2008 . . ~P?C:;217 . 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 I-580 freeway segments between 1-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-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/l-580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road.I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway Boulevard/Dublin Boulevard intersections and long EI 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 interchal1ge 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 witl1 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 SE1R. · Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM- TRAFFIC-l requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening the 1-580/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 tl1e 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 1-580/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 . . So ;r 2/7 . 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-S requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for the possible relocating the Fallon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection further north and the feasibility of adding a new signalized Project intersection 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 1-5S0 freeway and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, for 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-5S0 overcrossing shall also bewidened to six lanes. . Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-lO requires individual developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes. 2005 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR contained the following traffic and transportation mitigation measures: . Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-l 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 1-5S0 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 . . [J412J7 All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR, 2002 and 2005 SEIRs shall apply to tI1e 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, BuiIdout Plus Proposed Anderson Project A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour ID Signalized Intersections v/e LOS v/e LOS 14 Fallon Road/l-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 more 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 . . 85 '1 ~"7 c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residential development and related entitlements. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or 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 significant 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 theSDR review process by the City of Dublin. g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? LS. The proposed Project would include construction of sidewalks on the Croak Road and Monterosso Avenue frontages to facilitate pedestrian access. Bicyclists could 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 Sal1 Ramon Services District (DSRSD). . Sewage collection and treatment: DSRSD. · Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. . Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries . Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas al1d Electric Co. . Communications: AT & T. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 76 January 2008 . . 8b12/'7 Previous EIRs .Eastern Dublin ElR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin ElR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 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 COlmect 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 tl1e Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/ 34.0-3S.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 master plan, requires all new development to be cOlU1ected 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/S.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 . . 'i:h '12/7 2002 SEIR. The 2002 SElR identified two supplemental impacts related to utilities and service systems. Supplemental Impact UTS-l identified an uncertain energy supply within this portion of PG & E's service territory. Mitigation 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 PG & E prior to approval of such applications. Supplemental Impact SM-2 identified a supplemental impact with regard to constraints of PG & E's local distribution system. This impact would be mitigated by adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures UTS-l and 2. 2005 SEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures related to utilities or service systems were identified in tl1e 2005 SEIR. All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin ErR 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 this Project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that water and wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, impacts associated with this topic would be less-than-significant. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities 01' expansion of existing facilities? LS. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require developers of each individual project in the Eastern Dublin area to fund their fair share contribution to construct major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as to 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 2005 SEIR. Section 3.4 of the 2005 SEIR includes a description of water and wastewater facilities tI1at 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 Dublin, DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs, the Anderson Project will either be required to construct a portion of these identified facilities in order to support t11e 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 supplemental or more severe water or wastewater impacts than was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ElR. As noted previously in this Initial Study, the Project would include an increase in the number of dwelling units assumed in previous EIRs, but the number of dwellings in the approved Positano project, north of the Project 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 . . &12-1'7 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 aJTIended 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 i,. .' . . 2-q 12/1 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 limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in cOlmection 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 identified 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 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 80 January 2008 . . 0,012/7 Initial Study Pre parers Jerry Haag, Urban Plalmer, 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) Website Applicant Representatives Jeff Lawrence. Braddock & Logan COlmie Goldade, MacKay & Somps References Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEOA 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 A1mexation, Draft Supplemental EIR. City Dublin, January 2002 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 Fallon Village Project. Draft Supplemental EIR. 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 . . 01 D;f2F7 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 . . 9a ~2--/7 Appendix -Project Acoustic Analysis City of Dublin Initial Study/Anderson Property PA 07-037 Page 83 January 2008 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ, INC. ;:'\(UU:;(I(iJl iJI1(1 ;..\~ldi<Jvi';ljdj ((lnsuit;:mt'\ . . 93 1.;11( 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 , Fax 415 464 0155 . RGDLacoustics.com Anderson Property at Fallaillage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . O;'f 12-)7 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 flyovers 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 passby 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 LSD 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 ~ Tel415 464 0150'" Fax 415 464 0155 ~ RGDlacoustks.com Anderson Property at FallOllage. Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . q5~2J1 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 means of ventilation such as air- conditioning must be provided. The State building code also has requirements for 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 included in the project design. A CNEL of 70 to 75 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 conditionally 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 two implementing policies apply to this project: H. Review all multi-family development proposals within the projected 60 CNEL contour for compliance with noise 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 t- Larkspur CA 94939 .. Tel415 464 0150 ~ fax 415 464 0155'" RGDlacoustics,com Anderson Property at Fall~illage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . 90 12/ y 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. I 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 0; larkspur CA 94939 .. Te1415 464 0150., Fax 415 464 0155 '1 RGDLacoustics.com Anderson Property at FaIlO.lage, Dublin. CA Site Noise Assessment . Q'112-/'1 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. Fi ure 1: Noise Measurement Locations , N , T~..'L1. I ~t,~~CI~ c "..,".1 ~ i , , I A . APA Line MONTEROSSO AVENUE ,,- ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ, INC. 1100 larkspur Landing Circle #354 1> Larkspur CA 94939 -1 Tel 415 464 0150 ~ Fax 415 464 0155 '" RGDLacoustics.com Anderson Property at Fallaillage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . fS 1217 Page 5 15 January 2007 Table 1: Short-Term Noise Measurement Results Location Time A-weiohted Sound Level, dBA L" LlO L50 Loo CNEL At northwest corner of 1:00 P.M. - site, first fioor 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 fioor 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 PM 51 53 47 46 57 2 proposed buildings (9/1712007) At southeast corner of 2:30 PM.- site, third fioor of 3:30 P.M. 50 52 44 42 56 proposed buildings (9/17/2007) 'Equivalent Sound Level (L,q) 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,o 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 1 Opm, 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 <( '" '0 <;; > m -' m ~ '0 60 z m '" E m > <( ~ 0 0 :z: 50 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OJ i6 <; <; 'i ,;; OJ i6 <; <; 'i ,;; OJ i6 <; <; 'i ,;; OJ i6 <; <; 'i ,;; OJ i6 ~ N N ~ N N 9/13/07 9/14/07 9/15/07 Time 9/16/07 9/17/07 ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ, I~K 1100 Larkspur landing Circle #354 . Larkspur CA 94939 ,0- Tel 415 464 01 SO i' Fax 415 464 0155 i> RGDLacoustics.com Anderson Property at FaIlO.lage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . &J q ~ .2--1 7 Page 6 15 January 2007 -0: "' " 0; > ~ ...J ~ ~ ~ 60 ~ Cl 1:: ~ > -0: ~ ~ o :I: 50 Figure 3: Long-Term Noise Measurement Results at Location B CNEL = 58 dBA 80 70 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N <D 6 6 " 0; N <D 6 6 " 0; N <D 6 6 " 0; N <D 6 6 " 0; N <D ~ 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 3.1 O/C) A supplement to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR (2002 SEIR) was prepared in 2002 to identify any changes in the noise environment during the ten years between documents. The 2002 SEIR references the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR for aircraft noise and therefore still considers aircraft f1yover noise to be an insignificant impact. A 2005 SEIR does acknowledge, in Supplernentallmpact NOISE-1, however, that flyovers would be audible throughout the Fallon Village area and also acknowledges in Supplemental Noise Mitigation Measure 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 regarding the presence of f1yovers, as per AS 2776. 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 ",. Larkspur CA 94939 {> Tel 415 464 0150 " Fax 415 464 0155 ~ RGDLacoustics,com Anderson Property at Falll.,illage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . lro ~2(7 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 DID) 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 3.10/8, 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, Ir~c 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 <) Larkspur CA 94939 .. Tel 415 464 0150 q. Fax 415 464 0155 " RGDLacoustics.com Anderson Property at FallOlllage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . IDf ~2-17 ~. . I 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 significant noise impacts that require mitigation. The following discuss these impacts 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. However, the noise contours in the 2005 SEIR do not account for the large earthen 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 exposed to a CNEL in excess of 60 dBA would be those located in the 12-plex near 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 1-580 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 "Site 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 required. 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,Ir,JC 1100 larkspur Landing Circle #354 .. Larkspur CA 94939 '" Tel 415 464 0150 ~ Fax 415 464 0155 ,.. RGDLacoustics.com Anderson Property at Fall.illage, Dublin, CA Site Noise Assessment . I D eX Gt .217 P~e9 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 Vi/lage_Final15janOB.doc ROSEN GOLDBERG DER& LEWITZ, INC 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 .. larkspur CA 94939 .f< Tel 415 464 01 SO ... Fax 415 464 0155 .. RGDLacoustics.com 103 1:2/7 Exhibit C: Statement of overriding considerations. 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to . approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. In 2002, the City Council considered the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) annexation and prezoning project that included the Anderson property. The EDPO project was approved for future development of up to 2,526 dwellings at a variety of densities, up to 1,421,450 square feet of office development, commercial and similar non- residential land uses, a junior high school, elementary schools, parks, utility extensions and open spaces. The City Council certified a Supplemental EIR for the 2002 project, which EIR identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant (Resolution 40-02, April 2, 2002.) The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental air quality, biology, noise, and traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less-than- significant. In 2005, the current applicant, Braddock and Logan on behalf of ED PO, requested a General Pian/3astem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, Planned Developmem (PD) Rezone witr, a Stage 1 Development Plan, and reorganization oriana uses ir; 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 second Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. The 2005 EIR also identified supplemental air quality, traffic and cultural resources impacts that had not been identified in the prior ElRs and that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, with the 2002 EDPO approvals, and with the 2005 Fallon Village approvals. (Resolutions 53-93, 40-02, and 222-05, . respectively.) All of the project areas and approvals included future development of the Anderson property. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Anderson residential proj ect.l The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2002 Supplemental EIR and the 2005 Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the prior approvals, and implemented through the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the prior 1 ".. .public officials must still go on record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis in original) Communities/or a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Ca!. AppAth 98. Attachment lC I O,tf 12/7 ElRs. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, land use, or other benefits and considerations, as set forth below, that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts on the environment and support approval of the Anderson proj ect. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Anderson project. Land Use Impact 3.i1F Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impact 3.8/B, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character; Visual Impact 3.8/F, Alteration of Visual Character of Flatlands: Although development is occurring on the Positano site north of the Anderson property, the project site is largely undeveloped open space land. Future development of the Anderson site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land and character. Traffic and Circulation impacts 3.3IB, 3.3IE. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in tile Eastern Dublin EIR. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.31!, 3.3IM. Santa Rita RoadlI-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Anderson project is required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIP program. Even with mitigation, however, these impacts continue to be unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4IS. Consumption of Non- Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in energy usage through increased water treatment, disposal and operation of water distribution system: Future development of the Anderson project will contribute to increased energy consumption. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.61B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Anderson project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Biological Resources Impact 3.71C. Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitat. Even with mitigation, biologically sensitive habitat will be lost to development. Air Quality Impacts 3.iiIA, B, C, and E. Future development of the Anderson project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, . and mobile and stationary source emissions. . ,( 0 5121'7 3. . Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from tbe ED PO 2002 Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts identified in the 2002 Supplemental EIR for the EDPO project apply to the Anderson proj ect. Supplemental Impact AQl: Mobile Source Emissions: Reactive Organics (RO), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM-lO). Even with mitigation, cumulative development, including the project, would result in mobile source emissions that exceed applicable state and federal standards. Supplemental Impact BID 3: Loss or Degradation of Botanically Sensitive Habitats. Even with mitigation for potential California tiger salamander, kit fox and red-legged frog impacts, the future development of the project would result in a cumulative loss of botanically sensitive habitat. This loss is cumulatively significant, given the loss of other botanically sensitive habitat in the area. Supplemental Impact Traffic 6: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Dougherty RoadlDublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 7: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Hacienda Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 8: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, Fallon RoadlDublin Boulevard intersection. Supplemental Impact Traffic 11: Year 2025 cumulative buildout with project scenario, freeway segments on 1-580 and 1-680 in the project area 4. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from tbe Fallon Village 2005 Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable supplemental environmental impacts identified in the 2005 Supplemental EIR for the Fallon Village project apply to the Anderson project. Supplemental Impact TRA -1: Proj ect contribution to impact at the . DublinlDougherty intersection (DSEIR p. 64): Developer will advance money for road widening and other improvements but the improvements will not create enough capacity to reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. Supplemental Impact TRA-4: Cumulative impacts to local freeways (DSEIR p. 69): Traffic generated by the project will contribute to unacceptable levels of service on 1-580 and 1-680 segments during peak a.m. and p.m. hours. Supplemental Impact TRA-5: Consistency with Alameda County Congestion Management Plan (DSEIR p. 73): Traffic generated by the project will exceed County monitoring standards. /0612-17 Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3: Increase in regional emissions (DSEIR pp. 239-240.): The project's emissions increase exceeds BAAQMD thresholds on project and cumulative levels. 4. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits ofthe Eastern Dublin project. approvals and implementing development against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as set forth in Resolution 53-93. In 2002 and 2005, the City Council balanced those unavoidable impacts as well as the supplemental unavoidable impacts identified in the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs, against the projects' benefits, and determined that the imavoidable impacts were outweighed by the benefits of the 2002 and 2005 projects, both of which anticipated future development on the Anderson property. Now, in 2008, the City has reviewed the development requests for the Anderson property, including minor project changes related to increasing the previously approved residential density. The City prepared a CEQA Addendum for these minor changes based on an Initial Study documenting that the current project would not require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or other supplemental document, pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines section 15l62. In adopting the Addendum, the City Council determines that the prior EIRs adequately identify and analyze the potential signifi:;ant effe::ts afthe proposed Anuerson proje:;,. Tn~ City Coun::il, a::ting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, hereby determines that the significant unavoiuable impacts identified in the prior EIRs that are appiicable to the Anuerson project are outweighed by the need for and desire of the City to implement its long-range planning goals and policies. This long-range planning is reflected in the City's 1993,2002, and 2005 approvals for Eastern Dublin and the project site, and as set forth in the City's General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and the PD-Planned Development zoning for the project site. The City has carefully and systematically planned for the incremental development of its eastern lands, including the Anderson property. The City Council determines that approval of the project would implement the City's long-term program- level and development-level planning for Eastern Dublin in general and the Anderson project site in particular. More particularly, and consistent with the City's planning, the project provides for a higher density residential project located adjacent to the planned Village Center and that facilitates pedestrian access to that future activity center. The project avoids development on steeper lands in the northeasterly portion of the project site. The project also provides attractive development with a large component of affordable housing together with market rate housing. (07 ~ 217 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ********* APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPE<::;IFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE 7-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE . ANDERSON PROPERTY TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (APN 905-0001-006) PA 07-037 WHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council initiated a General Plan Amendment (GP A) and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study to modify the residential land .use designation from Medium Density to Medium-High Density for the northerly portion of the Anderson property located at 3457 Croak Road. The Applicant, Jeff Lawrence on behalf of Braddock & Logan Services, submitted an application 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 Development Plan, and Site Development Review to construct a 108-unit multi-family project on the site. 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 Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been amended a number of times sinc~ that aaie; anG. WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report for the original General Plan was prepared and adopted in 1984 and subsequent environmental reviews have been undertaken in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the various General Plan Amendments which have been approved over the years; and 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 since 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 Supplemental EIR (SCH No. 2001052114) by Resolution 40-02 that is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference. In connection with the 2002 project approval, the City Council adopted supplemental mitigation measures, mitigation findings, a statement of overriding consideration, and a mitigation monitoring program. All adopted supplemental mitigation measures continue to apply to the proj ect area; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the current Applicant, Braddock and Logan, on behalf of the Eastern Dublin Property Owners (EDPO), requested a General PlanlEastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment, ATTACHMENT 2 108 '1.2-/1 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; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2005, the City Council certified a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) by Resolution No. 222-05, and adopted a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Fallon Village project area, which includes the Anderson property, by Resolution 223-05 which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review in the Planning Division; and WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations and densities, and the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure l-la) that shows the location ofland uses within the City of Dublin planning area; and WHEREAS, the Land Use section of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan currently includes text related to Specific Plan Land Use Designations, and the "Land Use Map" map (Figure 4.l) that shows the location ofland uses within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the project's current General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (6J-l4.0 du/ac) allows for a maximum of98 residential 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). With approval of the requested land use changes, the proposed project will be consistent with the General and Specific Plan land use designations; and WHEREAS, the proposed 108 unit project exceeds the. arnoun', oi Geveiopment assumed. in the prior EIRs and established in prior approvals. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, an Initial Study was prepared by the City to determine whether there could be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this changed project beyond or different from those already addressed in the prior EIRs. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum to the prior EIRs. The Planning Commission reviewed the Addendum before making a recommendation on the requested land use changes and adopted Resolution 08-0l recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum; and . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said project on February l2, 2008; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February l2, 2008, was submitted and incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, the Planning Commission' adopted Resolution 08-02 incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated March 4, 2008, and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments for the Anderson property; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Project at a noticed public hea.-:ing on March 4, 2008, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and 2 /0'1 ~2P7 WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the City Council approved Resolution _-08, incorporated herein by reference, adopting the CEQA Addendum for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth, including Addendum and prior ElRs, and used its independent judgment to evaluate the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan based on findings that the amendments are in the public interest and will not have an adverse effect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent, and that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended is consistent with the General Plan. Section I. General Plan Amendments. . Subsection i. Replace Figure 1-1 a, General Plan Land Use Map with the revised General Plan Land Use Map updated through February 12, 2008 below. <w:rl'ji'DUBLIN GENSRAL PLAN ,"'~'';''''' :,1,-\';; '1',:J: LJ1ND USE MAP ~Q~i~.J:/:' --- {Figure 1-1a! as amended through February 12,2008 . ,~./. /i j' W.,,""' ~x"ndU Pllnnlng NO --- " /~~/ ,. , l r-~'" , '" \, ............-..... . ':> /~' , ""---;-" / 'X~. I ":;$'~', '~;~'>/ + i PublkfSenWublic,lOpen Space Commen:laVlndU'ltrial I l:JZ:! ~P"" .c-.;~ . .-votII<~ I IT:lPMkl,fI'utl/lC.=",IDDr' .Ile!>IIVOIlu_^""""""" BlODoolr.pace !5i5~~ la'5s~""c_ .~~_,orru i GE:.'}PuDllclMl<!' IllPullk/~ .-- c."..,."OI'!icc Residential I'lanrlingAreilUmits II\I"'R~"'9"'~rlt.nl,,",IOO[io""~"'aeol .'.Us~~~_'1k>InIory ~__(o.g'.o.tdul"'l _~P\arn'>gllrea-.ry ";"U>w-Dernily"""Jef.mtIy/o.S-3.tiw/ocJ _We.l<mE>l"""""_gNOAaoundaly r:J LowOetuot)'_JllO.lLC.....""r COIyalc.-. m.:J~~.mI)'~.IO'~.6.0""'O<! DP'ar>:'IrFTA r::::1MrdR.Jm-DrnnryRe>oO""'""'!6.I"40du,lac:1 Dlpr..rec'InIIL.OOn<e . ModalnVHI<p>Omuly_1141_2S0dul<<l .""'1>O=It)t~_r1s..I'au.racl Tri-valleyJuisdiCIion:i DOIyclu..-....... OOl)'UI_""'" Oerrycl_- -., ~ -.. -- . -- .. _.~ m..-...-lolf';rt __...,.'f..............._ _1Iw..."'P.r>,IIodul"'....,.,(l<Jt<lo<llS"".!1" ...~~ 1iZ3~~""'_0ll'Ic' 3 //0 121 '7 Subsection ii. Replace Table 2.1 (Land Use Summary: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Area) with the following revised Table 2.l: TABLE 2.1 * LAND USE SUMMARY: EASTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA (Amended: Resolution 223-05, 58-07, XX-08) Acres Intensityu Units Du'slacre Du's Classification RESIDENTIAL High Density Medium-High Density Medium-Density Single Family Mixed Use**** 69.9 35 ~ 132.4 20 ~ 558.2 10 864.8 4 710.5 :01 2,335.8 Floor Area Acres Ratio (Gross) 347.9 .35/.25 72.7 .28 6,4 .3/1.0 57.5 .35/.30 189.36 .75/.35 114.7 .25/.28 788.6 Rural Residential TOTAL COMMERCIAL General Commercial General Commercial/Campus Office..* Mixed Us~ Neighborhood Commercial Campus Office Industrial Park***** TOTAL: , PARITSANDPUBLI~RMR-ATION 2,447 ~2,616 ~5,582 3,459 96 7 -!+,WI 14,239 Square Feet (millions) 4.228 ..887 .083 .819 3.052 1.329 I 9.816 I I Factor Personsldu 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.2 . 2.0 3.2 Square Feet / Employee 510 385 490 490 260 590 Yield Population 4,894 ,>,GM 5,232 -I+,3ll4 1,164 11,069 192 22 ~ 32,605 Jobs 8,290 2,303 171 1,671 11,739 2,253 26,427 , . , \..., ....'.....~. , II City rark 56.3 I I pari: I I Community Park 97.0 I 2 parks I Neighborhood Park 47.1 8 parks Neighborhood Square 16.6 6 parks Regional Park 11.7 I park TOTAL: 228.7 18 parks I OPEN SPACE I 649.6 I I I I I PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 101 .25 LI20 590 1,899 Semi Public 13.1 .25 Schools Elementary School 63.2 5 schools Junior High School 25.2 I school High School 0 o school School Subtotal 88,4 6 schools TOTAL: 202.5 TRANSIT CENTER (Total) 90.7 - Carnous Office (including ancillary retail) 38.3 - High-Density Residential 31.5 - Park 12.2 - Public/Semi-Public (Transit-Related) 8.7 I GRAND TOTAL 4.295.9 I 'Table 2.1 appears as Table "2A" in the Eastern Dublin GP A. It was relabeled herein for fonnatting purposes. ooNumbers represent a ntid-range considered reasonable given the permitted density range or as otherwise limited through City approvals. oo'The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General CommerciaVCampus Office is the average of the figure used for Genera' Commercial and Campus Office uses. 4 . 11/:f2-i7 ....For the purpose of this table, Mixed Use acreage only will be considered Commercial, not residential, to avoid duplication in tabulation of overall total acres. .....The .28 FAR figure utilized for Industrial Park refers to Industrial Park areas within Fallon Village. ......The locatious of Semi-Public sites on. the Jordan, Croak and Chen properties of Fallon Village will be determined at the . time ofPD-2 approvaL The site on Jordan will be 2.0 net acres within the Village Center; the site on Croak, 2.0 net acres; and the site on Chen, 2.5 net acres. For the purposes of this table, 2.0 acres of Medium High Density Residential land on Jordan was changed to Semi-Public, 2.0 acres of Single Family Residential land on Croak was changed to Semi-Public and 2.5 acres 'ofMedium High Density residential land on Chen was changed to Semi-Public. These assumptions may change at the time of PD-2 approvaL Section II. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Subsection i. Replace Table 4.1 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary) with the following revised Table 4.1: TABLE 4.1 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 66.03, 47..()4, 223"'{)5, 58-07, xx-08) Land Use Description LAND AREA DENSITY YIELD COMMERCIALIINDUSTRlAL General Commercial 356.8 acres .25-.35 FAR I 4.122MSF i General Commer:iallCamous I 72.7 acres I .887 MSF , I .28 FAR , Office I Industrial Park' 61.3 acres .25-.28 FAR .747 MSF Nei"hborhood Commercial 61.4 acres .30-.35 FAR .871 MSF Mixed Use 6.4 acres .30-1.0 FAR .083 MSF Campus Office 192.66 acres .35-.75 FAR 3.7.30 MSF . Subtotal 751.3 acres 10.44 MSF RESIDENTIAL Hi"h Density 68.2 acres 35 du/ac 2,387 du Medium Hi"h Density ~ 144.5 acres 20 du/ac :!,7W 2,858 du Medium Density ~ 511.3 acres 10 du/ac ~ 5,113 du Single Family 872.6 acres 4 du/ac 3,490 du Rural Residential/ Agric. 697.4 acres .01 du/ac 7du Mixed Use 6.4 acres"'''' 15du/ac 96 du Subtotal 2,300 acres l-3,9Y 13,951 du PUBLIc/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 98.2 acres .24 FAR 1.027 MSF Semi-Public 9.3 acres .25 FAR Subtotal 107.5 acres 1.027 MSF SCHOOLS Elementarv School 66.5 acres . 5 schools Junior High School 21.3 acres 1 school Subtotal 87.8 acres 5 /102 12-) 7 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE City Park 563 acres 1 park Community Park 97.0 acres 3 parks Neighborhood Park 49.0 acres 7 parks Neighborhood Square 16.7 acres 6 parks Subtotal 219 acres 17 parks Open Space 607.5 acres. TOTAL LAND AREA 4,073.5 acres *The .28 FAR for Industrial Park refers to the Industrial Park areas in Fallon Village. **The 6.4 acres is the same acreage as listed in the Mixed Use cells. The 6.4 acres under Residential is not included in the sum of Residential uses in this table. 83,635 square feet of commercial and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use governs both commercial and residential uses. Subsection ii. Replace Table 4.2 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Population and Employment Summary) with the following revised Table 4.2: I TABLE 4.2 EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN POPULJ.TION AND EMPl.OYl\1ENT' SUMlvIARY (Amended Per Resolution No. 47-04, 223-05, xx-08) Land Use Designation Development Sq FtlEmployees Persons/au Population Commercial Industrial Park .747 MSF 590 1,266 General .887 MSF 385 2,303 Commercial/Campus Office* General Commercial 4.122 MSF 510 8,082 Neighborhood Commercial .885 MSF 490 1,806 Mixed Use"'* .083 MSF 490 171 Campus Office 3.730 MSF 260 14,346 Public/Semi Public 1.027 MSF 590 1,740 Semi-Public 590 TOTAL: 11.481 MSF 29,714 Residential High Density 2,387 2.0 4,774 Medium High Density ~ 2,858 2.0 i>,W() 5,716 Medium Density ~ 5,113 2.0 ~ 10,226 Single Family 3,490 3.2 11,168 Mixed Use** 96 2.0 192 Rural Residential/Agric. 7 3.2 22 TOTAL: lJ,m 13,983 ~ 32,098 6 1J3c;f2'7 "The Sq Ft/Employees figure utilized for General Commercial/Campus Office is the average. of the figures used for General Commercial and Campus Office uses. "Includes Mixed Use units (6.4 acres and 96 du) wilNn Fallon Village Center.83,635 square feet of commercial and 96 units are anticipated on the mixed use sites (total). The FAR for Mixed Use is the maximum area for all development (i.e. total of residential and commercial) on designated sties. Subsection iii. Replace Table 4.3 (Projected Jobs/Housing Balance) with the following revised Table 4.3: TABLE 4.3 . CITY OF DUBLIN PROJECTED JOBS/HOUSING BALANCE (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, XX~08) PLANNING Dwelling Jobs Employed Balance Ratio AREA Units Residents Existing City of 7,100 12,210 12,000 -210 1.02:1.0 Dublin Eastern Dublin ~ 29,424 20,244 .-9,390 1.47:1.0 Specific Plan Area 13,379 TOTAL: :w,44l- 41,634 32,244 -9,390 1.30:1.0 20,479 Subsection iv. Replace Table 4.10 (Foothill Residential Subarea Development Potential) with the following revised Tabic; ~. lO: TABLE 4.10 FOOTHILL RESIDENTIAL SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Amended Per Resolution No. 223-05, 58-07, XX-OS) Designation ) Acres Density DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Medium-High Density Residential 7 20 du/ac 108 du Medium Density Residential d{)bJ 294.3 10 du/ac ~ 2,943 du Single Family Residential 795.2 4 du/ac 3,181 du Rural Residential 697.4 .01 du/ac 7du Residential Subtotal 1793.9 - 6;Wl6,239 du Open Space 505.2 -- - Community Park 32 -- I park Neighborhood Park 46.8 - 7 parks Neighborhood Square 6.4 -- 2 squares Park/Open Space Subtotal 590.4 -- 10 parks Elementary School 22.7 -- 3 schools Junior High School 6.8 -- I school High School 55.3 -- I school School Subtotal 84.8 -- 5 schools 7 III-( 12-17 Public/Semi-Public 4.8 0.24 FAR . -- 6,WlG,239 du Total 2,473.9 . -- 10 parks 5 schools Subsection v. Replace Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) with the revised Figure 4.1 (Land Use Map) updated through February l2, 2008 below. "- ." "-./~ / Rft~"",'~."""",,O ct-~CR;,_.. 'f~~ :'~;.;~;li Figure 4.1 Land Use Map -,.~.- ~."..-""'-- ,---- =~::-?..:..~.:':" -..0.-.......-... ',/ \ -j c::::l,,--""" r::::l...,,,oo- c:::::J",",--,-,,- Sl>KlftePI.nLU ; , Parks Reserve FOFces Training Area (cam)" Parks) totll,,__ E3J...........- --- --- -- - . ....__R......' ~;pr, -,-~.-..- ~ --~.-~.- _-..._~".,.._, ---"'....~, c.ounty of Alameoa --- ~-~-.. -- ~~}..._~ .dO" <-0'" ----. EI c..ommu""v'>" ~ "''I'n".'''oo~5Q".'' ~_o"~'''''.",L: ~".,,,on"."f ~ ~"'m.""ry X""'" ~M"'d"'s.rnClOl ~H>9nS~ . Sr==:-'" ...-"...--......-- -"""""-""---" -"--"""-" ~ l'ellNary200B .'''''....--.. ---.-- ._-..... 05001,(:00 1.000 J,CIICl >0. OO.D:!l.1 C..l a.l D.. C1.5 -, . Subsection vi. Revise Foothill Residential portion of Appendix 3 (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Summary by Planning Subareas) with the following: Foothill Residential Medium-High Density Residential 7 20 108 ~ Medium Density Residential 294.3 10 g,mJ 2,943 Single Family Residential 795.2 4 3,181 Rural Residential/Agriculture 697.4 .01 7 Subtotal 1,793.9 6,Wl 6,239 8 //5 <;f 2-/7 Open Space 505.2 Community Park 32 Neil:?:hborhood Park 46.8 Neie:hborhood Sauare 6.4 Subtotal 590.4 Elementarv School 22.7 Junior High School 6.8 Hie:h School 55.3 Subtotal 84.8 Semi-Public* 4.8 0.24 Total 2473.9 e,2lll 6,239 Subsection vii. Replace the information for #22 Anderson in Appendix 4 (Eastern Dubiir, Specific Plar, Land Use Summary by Land Owners) with the foliowing: Acres Density Square Feet Units Owner/Land Use Catee:orv #22 ANDERSON Medium. Density Residential Medium-Hie:h Densitv Residential 7.0 l{) 20 ;zg 108 General Commercial/Campus Office 34.2 .28 417,131 Open Space 9.1 Total 50.3 417,131 ;zg 108 Section ill. The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 7.3 (Foothill Residential) to read as follows: "Outlying areas of low, medium, and medium-high density housing comprise the Foothill Residential subarea." . Section IV. All provisions of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan not amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed map and text amendments to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 9 II b c;f 21 7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plari Amendment shall be effective 30 days after the date of approval. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of March 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2007\07-037 Anderson GPA SPA PO SDR\City Council\CC Reso Anderson GPA SPA.I?OC lO 117 io?/1 ORDINANCE NO. XX-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ************* APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH AMENDED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 7-ACRE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE ANDERSON PROPERTY (APN 905-0001-006) PA 07-037 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 32-05 the City Council rezoned the approximately 1,134-acre Fallon Village project area, generally located north ofI-580 and east of Fallon Road to the Planned Development Zoning District (pA 04-044) and adopted a Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire project area which includes the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property (APN 905-000l-006). B. This Ordinance adopts an amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan for the 7-acre, residential portion of the Anderson property. C. This CJrciinance adopts a Stage 2. Development Plan for tne 7 -acre residential site. located. on the Anderson property. Section 2. FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Section 8.32.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The Planned Development (PD) Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, and Stage 2 Development Plan meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance becaUse: it provides a comprehensive development plan that is tailored to the residential land use proposed on the Project site and creates a desirable use ofland that is sensitive to surrounding land uses by virtue of the layout and design, which is adjacent to Croak Road and the future Monterosso Avenue and is in close proximity to the 1-580 freeway. 2 The PD Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, and Stage 2 Development Plan will be harmonious and compatible with existing and fUture development in the surrounding areas because: l) the land uses and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed Project is consistent with the type of high density development located in the Fallon Village Center; 3) the use will continue to promote an active, pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center; 4) the Project site has been designed to reduce impacts on the future adjacent residential developments; and 5) the Project site includes attractive landscaping and site elements including a location for public art, street trees and light fixtures to create an attractive landscape palette for the site and create a pedestrian friendly environment on Croak Road and future Monterosso Avenue. B. Pursuant to Section 8.l20.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: Attachment 3 11,8 r c2t7 1. The PD Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, and Stage 2 Development Plan, will be harmonious and. compatible with existing and fUture development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the proposed Project is consistent with the type of high density development located in the Fallon Village Center; 3) the use will continue, to promote an active, pedestrian oriented development in the Fallon Village Center; 4) the Project site has been designed to reduce impacts on the future adjacent residential developments; and 5) the Project site includes attractive landscaping and site elements including a location for public art, street trees and light fixtures to create an attractive landscape palette for the site and create a pedestrian friendly environIDent on Croak Road and future Monterosso Avenue. 2. The Project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed because: 1) the Project site will have a density of 15.4 units per acre which is . consistent with the amended General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designation of Mediuln-High Density Residential which permits 25 units or more per acre; 2) the Project site was previously developed as quarry, but is currently vacant; 4) the site accessible by Croak Road, an existing street that will be improved with the Project and the future Monterosso Avenue, which will be constructed with this Project and both streets are located adjacent to the Project and is therefore physically suitable for the type and intensity of the proposed Planned Development Zoning district. 3. The PD Rezone with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, and Stage 2 Development Plan will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be derrimenral to the publi::.: hea!ti~1 safeTY or welfare becaUSE: th~ Pro.ie~'t win compl~:. v/itri all applicable development regulations and standards and wili implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 1 Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because: 1) the proposed 108 unit project is consistent with the General Plan Medium-High Density Residential uses and density; 2) the Project site is within convenient walking distance of the future Fallon Village Center; 3) the Project site is located in a less environmentally constrained area portion of the plan area; and 4) the Anderson development includes an attractive development with apartment buildings and landscaping which will promote visual interest of the site from the adjacent properties and the street and will promote a pedestrian friendly environment once the Project is complete. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution No. 222-05 certifying a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (SCH #2005062010) to the Eastern Dublin EIR, a program EIR, initially certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 (SCH#91103064) and the Eastern Dublin Property Owners SEIR (SCH # 20010521l4) certified in 2002 by Resolution 40-02 for the Fallon Village project. The prior EIRs are available for review in the Community Development Department. On March. 4, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution -08 adopting a CEQA Addendum for the project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 832, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district: 11C;:(C2/1 7i. net acres located in an area bounded by land designated Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac) to the north, the future Monterosso Avenue and General Commercial/Campus Office to the south, land designated Medium Density Residential (6.1-14 du/ac) to the east, and Croak Road and land designated as Open Space to the west (APN 905-000l-006). of Rezoned Area CBN'TRA!, PAltK.WAY SUBJECI' SITE \~ ~ oUIER CA."NON .,.,0 Section 4. STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT The 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property is subject to the Fallon Village Stage 1 Development Plan adopted D:' Ordinan:;" }2-05, Tne Stage 1 Development PlaE remains as approved by Ordinance 32-5, ex:;ept as specified below. 1. Stage 1 Site Pian. The amended Stage 1 Site Plan incorporates the Medium-High'Density land use designation in place of the Medium Density designation on the 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property. STAGE 1 SITE PLAN loUJ <;tu 7 2. Site Area, densities. As follows: Land Use Acreaf'e Densitv Single Family Residential 403.6 acres 0-6.0 units/acre Medium Density Residential 6H53.1 acres 6.1-14.0 units/acre Medium-High Density Residential ~ 30.8 acres l4.l-25.0 units/acre Rural Residential! Agriculture 142.9 acres 1 unit/lOO acres Mixed Use . 6.4 acres 0.3-1.00 FAR General Commercial 72.1 acres 0.20-0.60 FAR General Commercial!Camous Office 72.7 acres 0.20-0.80 FAR Industrial Park/Camous Office 61. 3 acres 0.35 FAR Community Park 18.3 acres -- Neighborhood Park 23.6 acres -- Neighborhood Square 8.0 acres -- Open Soace 2l1.2 acres -- Elementary School 21.l -acres -- Semi Public 8.6 acres 0.50 FAR Section 5. STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the subject 7-acre residential portion of the Anderson property are set forth in the following Stage 2 Development Plan, which is hereby approvec,. Any amendments to the Stagt. :2 Developmem Plarl shall be ill accordance with SectioIt 8.3:C.080 of the Dubiin Iv'1unicipai Code. 1. Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan is compatible with the amended Stage 1 Development Plan for the Anderson property in that the Project is a residential development as planned for in the Stage 1 Development Plan. 2. Statement of uses. PD-Medium High Density Residential Intent. Medium-High Density land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living in a variety of types of dwellings at. a reasonable range of population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential district while pernlltting higher population densities; c) ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling unit; d) minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them; e) provide necessary space for off-street parking of automobiles and, where appropriate, for off-street loading of trucks; and f) protect residential properties from the hazards, noise and congestion created by commercial and industrial traffic. Permitted Uses Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance Animal Keeping - Residential Community Care Facility/small (permitted ifrequired by law, otherwise as conditional use) Home Occupations (per Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance) Leasing Office - for leasing on-site units only Multi-Family Dwelling Private Recreation Facility (for homeowners' association and/or tenants use only) Id/12/7 Single Family Residence Small Family Day Care Home Stormwater Facilities Sirnilar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Conditional Uses Bed and Breakfast Inn Boarding House Community Facility Community Care Facility/large Community Clubhouse Day Care center Large Family Day Care Home Parking Lot - residential Semi-Public Facilities Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit procedures. 3. Stage 2 Site Plan. 'Project Site 4. Site area, proposed densities. Proposed Stage 2 PD Land Use Plan Land Use Designation Gross Net Number of Gross Net Acres Acres Units Density Dens ity Medium-High Density Residential 7.0 6.9 108 15,4 15.7 TOTAL 7.0 69 108 du 15:4 15.7 /~0212/ '7 5. Development Regulations. Minimum Setbacks A B Building to Building 15' Building to Parlcing/Caroort/Private StreetJDrivewav 10' Building to Public Street Right-of-Way 20' Maximum Lot Covera!'e 50% Minimum Common Usable Outdoor Space 100 sf per unit Maximum BuUdin!' Hei!'ht 45' and 3 stories Parkin!! SDaces Required Residential Units I covered space plus I uncovered space per unit Leasing Office 1 uncovered space per 250 sf of office space A. Encroachments shall be allowed to project up to three feet mto building separations and must be at least 36" from property line (or comply with UBe standards, whichever is more restrictive). See item B below. B. Encroachments include, but are Dot limited to: roof overhangs, eaves, architectural projections, fIreplaces, log storage, media niches, balconies, bay windows, exterior stairs, window ledges, second floor overhangs, decks, porches, trellises, and air conditioning equipment Air conditioning units can not be in highly visible areas unless no other option exists. All utilities including air conditioning units are to be screened from view via walls, enclosures, roof placement, landscaping, etc. 6. Architectural Standards. The architectural standards, concepts, and theme follows and enhances that established in the Fallon Village Stage 1 PD design guidelines and Braddock & Logan's Positano at Fallon Village Stage 2 PD design guidelines. These sets of guidelines shall be considered in development of the project. These criteria are reflected in the site layout and design of the buildings. Fallon Village has been designed to 'De reminiscent or rural viliages of the Mediterranear,. The design character ror the Anuerson Property builds upon this agrarian Mediterranean theme. 7. Prelimina Plan. / ,. 1>~"""-'J.I:(I""'''''''_I\fl'i. -._ I' ,"11,"~,~' ,,-J:'......e.,..;'.<jjU~<:Ol~b!oP!~.. ......,S;"'f~b<~<l'...el -..._____ ,,11'Q....~ ra:.,......~ . .// """...."_I_C~!.;l~\f.ul.<_ '--'_~ lX.....!'-. ~ '.-:"~. ~ .,r ~na. __....,.r~""""....""'.t;~lI'Y -.- ---- ,. >~, '..t~ W......' '/" (~t'~h<<So1d~~fDt<c....l. -'.'-' "-....:.. I '\\\'-~ .! .,., ." '-.- '~'~"-"'\'~;' !~Y'~ "- './ /-"-~,.""._'-~...- .........Hovrl""" -___ ---"-_'~'''' \ '-if' ~_ ~~ : // "'..........'I.......,;:u;q""r..'" ._~--- -- ..."" ~ "/;"s:'! '.1:.... , (............\\'..ht~,oI'u.AIl"'..w~ ~C.go.....'l\<> -----___.. ----~-.--..:.iJ.:( -, .iI;.~~';.""Jk. ,.) ~~."'-: ,,,,r. " . / ~............""........ f<-.,q,UW>l,1Iil ---__._.._ II _~ '\. ~ ".......J' ,., ~~. '...>',' / 8'""'_\"'1>-' .. --_=11', '"'.., " ~\ , ....---~aol<~~"""O<>Q~ _Ir_-""l~_~ ;'..:.;..-.;:,A"::::,,,' --.. ',t. ~N_' t~~l ........ 1,.o/"__..;t~_"')......1'.on'p - "..-,;:--" . -......:., , .. , '~.:; r. .j ..-=....~ ...- 1>.~"""lo.."'1"....."WI'tI I'-?I.,..r~-..._',.. J, {.:'<"" . _" _<~......_ ",.k"""", .;r:-1 . .'ur~ 1 ,,- _". ; .-' .. ...~......~'l:l~......t_......... 1I_1...."d-..... ....,_.:./tT... tr'JJ;:,'j s..,''', "- -'1~1"~","~~ /,Y t'~I''''h'''('S<......j>..\.....,_ -...... .~-/.L'..:V.~""1!I'~: ';r:..y.'- /' -~ .....""""""'u",.- "-. .....//..J,~~:LSr!, ;./~~I'" .(.. ..~l . . ~l_hb,l\tl1~ ::;(............. I' r "n~J I.~'" ~ "!.....l.~uUvld'"'ll...\'uo..""'~.... - " ~,'~,';;......j. ;,1. I:!t:'n~~:::""-"'c !J.t< 'x~' ~ ./ _d\'i",",-~""'''', ".,,; '''ff."...:...,*,,' ,,/ '.:..... ~"i'..,....~~~,.... '.~ I. ,..---~~t>':ro..:"So:.tr r.4S.tlt-'>~"",,,""'oIlb " "'- ',~r..."'.ilf.JJ ~-f .~~ ~ ~'t::.I~~:? .... . _/ ~~C""""""!~tt'!'O~R.ro) SO',obl-'(._.....~ " ~--... r~':!-...:. "','":iJ""i.:i[:, '~~i";, ..~t~,f~~ l.-d./f"' ~',/ V-~.....~ .,.. - l~f~"l_~ '- ~"'i-"~""~""~'~~~' !'i~4J: ,1-.r""~ 1.,......- 7'-li"l~'~. / \ ';./' I,"T~'u...~"'-.) ..., /:l, ' ....:: ~If."!": R:lt:.i 17f:..A '-W ;--'-':. :~~....... ',i,A"- ~ .'.........'!f~ ,~; q" ,)!..7-(;'i::...... ~~'~~21l:fr". ....-S-. .,-T,..",tOl'It-..-, Ij ) .f.~'. "":,,,,l Jf"il/~- :/;;/l: "i:'~-::1n~"'~.-"~.';I~-f' / t I. / < ~/r"><.--?1"'>tf.,. -I;; "-''-1,",!,,:,./...,:;;-;.:.,~r------1:y','1ol_11 I "/ /-Wh'_.~'~'=~""" P ."', . ..L~?I, "'\f:t,1i"'"7 I, ~~4' L,..,:"~"'11 !<~l"l~ I 1 -..r'" /' ''''''')I...fe-.nl'''n....... y ~.; - .,.,...." Pfj':f:' ,/;~'tL~, fit ':~~"f-' :.-.~' r;r:'" ~wil':':/ w......,..,.,1_. -, ~..,~.. P: ~,:,../'I.' :.:;iC, r, 1_" J' I' ,I ( ~_:,:,.J ~'~'.J~" ." . ""..e..~'tl"vl...., '\ r:...,' . - ".:':/,$II~ ><IC'?-!'..-I"",~ ~..' ..~t \ ~t t. I C',. / t.:}i...:.~~ -.'IA"...J!-", !r:,~ i1f'-:..._t~~l?::-::.'.ir> ~ ..!..I..::..:! /~-"'J.~/ 0:I'~""'_'"t''''I~~,~c... - \ --::))- v 'l,~<:'lo/I:' I ,,<:, <>.y#~; '..:".~~"h::--:) 1", ; ,"'~;~ ;;r..... ~-("., 1Jo....,,4r'''''''"''-' ......~~"(\,,.,_,..~."~n \ '~:;::".._ :.'~\J'I 'jl "{:.,'"I:!.-....--~"..~:--';.y\,'f-,~~..-'f /'I~' ,/ '""'s...n".....,,, '......\ol"'!...I>'~N.Io...,~_~ "~"~ ' j"i f~i;.J .... v'" 7...JI ~'"'1'9f'-"" JJ.,"":.....-' " fl . ",_:" -..: :\l!' J;.:, c-l -, ~; i., l.: ...:-......)0' 4', \..../1;:' '..~"~r' --; -, .../' .....~-t-:.. " "- \",- i....;("'"t!.I, Ii ,,-..'" ,/'" "'.......', ._l'~......."'~"'~...... /'X::'I ) ,.../ .:2""~, J' '-t,~'''''-;'~\:r'''''' .~... '-""/ 1:tJ,..,"'J' :, .... ~ ... '. ~~ .;.. " I ;;.\;.._'~;..- /~/ )' U: .. , . (.~. .. y~-/,;,,";,.-::r; ~ --"',- ''71''. '",:..:- :..,...:.... ~ ~ ., 'I<.....l..~<on:c-_....... ,~..r t.. .,:. i!.~< --.,....("J:~- :'r-W~~.:..~~;.::Ji .~;l}-:?1~~:::.:"~b~'., /........".:.dC..; ';"I".... '" ....~, :....,.-~ f ~".f-l-Il.:o.s..;r...J' ".?1' ,rl""~I~;f:?, ' 'l ;......\. , '. . ".\7""'T.-;;"+~ 11 j,... '_~M' J'Jf ~'r' :..<t:l" r.I,n-:r''''''T ':. y . "'>.; >~~:;~:';;f:.,~..j~~~i;<-~:":~>~:~~;$:~ r;.:;l,",'nllox,\C '~'!"u:: 1) , II;PC ~~ W-~ . ...~. AND1R&ON pf\orlltT"V DU6L1N -CAllFDIlNIA oveaALL LANDSCAr~ "1.AN 1 ~""='''T~. JolNU<l".,:DlI. , Idd 12-17 Section 6. The use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Project area shall be governed by the provisions of the R-M, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District and of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance except as provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan. Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this 4th day of March, 2008 by the following vote: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mavo, ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PAtf\2007'lJ7-037 Anderson GPA SPA PD SDR\Ciry Council\CC Ordinance Stage 1 and 2.doc /0<1-1 cf 2--1, CITY CLERK File # D~[Z]~-[~][Q] '+10,'55 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 17,2007 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: Initiation of a General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Anderson property located at 3457 Croak Road. Report Prepared by: Jeff Baker, Senior Planner 1) Resolution approving initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. 2) Resolution denying initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. 3) Vicinity Map. 4) Braddock & Logan Affordable Housing Proposal - October 1 g 2005. 5) City Council Staff Report ( w/out Attachments) of October 18, 2005. 6) City Council Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2005. 7) City Council Staff Report (w/out Attachments) of June 5, 2007 2) City Council Meeting lviinutes of ju.'le 5, 2007 9) Project proposal and ietter from the Applicant dated March 19, 2007. 10) Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Map. , FINANCIAL STATEMENT: 5) Receive Staff presentation; Receive presentation from Applicant; Receive public comment; and Adopt Resolution (Attachment l) approving initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study; or Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. The cost to prepare the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment shall be borne by the affected property owner who has requested this amendment. COPIES TO: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Applicant Property Owner Page 1 of4 ITEMNO. ~. 2- G:\PA#\2005\OS-038 B&L Stage 2 Fallon Village\Anderson\ccsr 7.17.07 gpa spa request doc Attachment 4 P<5~21~ PROJECT DESCRIYfION: Background The Anderson property is located north of Interstate 580 and east of Croak Road in Fallon Village (formerly EDPO) and included within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Attachment 3). In December 2005, a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment (Resolution No. 223-05), and Stage 1 Plarmed Development Rezone (Ordinance No. 32-05) was adopted by the City Council for Fallon Village which includes the Anderson property. The following General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations were adopted at that time for the Anderson property: Table 1 General Plan/S ecific Plan Land Use Medium Densi General Commercial/Cam us Office o enS ace Total Acrea e 7 ac 34.2 ac 9.1 ac 50.3 ac Positano Affordable Housing Obligation Braddock & Logan's Positano development is located east of Filllon Road within the northern portion of Fallon Village (Attachment 3) and ,consists of l,043 single-family detached residential units. In accordance with the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.68), the Positano development has a requirement to provide 130 affordable units. Total 1 inclusionary inciusionary Units Reouirement Units I 1,043 I 12.5% 130 Tanle 2 Braddock & Logan prepared an Affordable Housing Proposal (Attachment .4) to address the affordable housing obiigation for the Positano development which was reviewed by the City Council on October 18, 2005. This Affordable Housing Proposal included: . 88 off-site affordable apartments located on the Anderson property; . 26 on-site affordable integrated units within the Positano development; . 26 on-site secondary units within the Positano development; and . $1,000,000 Community Benefit Payment. Please refer to Table 3 for a summary of the affordable units proposed for construction as part of the Affordable Housing Proposal for the Positano development. . ab e : or a e OUSllll' Proposal October 18, 2005 Unit Type Ownership Income Level Size of Units Affordability /Rental Period 88 Apartrnents* 50% moderate All Rental 20% low 2 bedroom! In perpetuity 30% very low 2 bath 26 Single-family For sale 50% moderate Same mix of In perpetuity detached Units 20% low bedroom size as T I 3 Ail d bl H Page 2 of 4 Unit Type Ownership Income Level Size of Units AffordabiIity /Rental Period 30% very low market rate units 50% moderate All 26 Secondary Units Rental 20% low 1 bedroom! In perpetuity 30% very low I bath 130 Total Units /<2612/7 * Includes 9 units to satisfy the Inclusionary Zoning requirements .for the Anderson property & 1 manager's unit as defined in the Braddock & Logan's Mfordable Housing Proposal. Staff presented Braddock & Logan's Mfordable Housing Proposal to the City Council on October 18, 2005, and requested direction from the City Council on how to proceed with the proposal. The City Council reviewed the proposal and directed Staff to work with Braddock & Logan to refine the proposal (Attachment 5) as follows: 1) Study the feasibility of integrating the 88 affordable apartment units into a larger project on the Anderson property; 2) Work on timing issues and obtain the necessary security to ensure completion of the project on the Anderson property; 3) Include landscaping for the rear yards of the affordable units and use energy-efficient measures in the homes to reduce the cost of housing; and 4) Incorporate green building principles, as practical. At that meeting, the City Council described that the integration of the 88 affordable apartments units proposed for the, Anderson Darcel 'should he rieveloDed as "mixe~-income project with market-rate units. Since the uctober 1 g. 2005 City Council meeting, Staff and. Bradliock & Logan have worked. to refine !fIe , - ~ proposal in accordance with the direction from the City Council. Due to uncertainties about the off-site affordable units on the Anderson property, Braddocl: & Logan proposed a phased approach to the affordable obligation to allow the initial phases ofPositano to move forward" On June 5, 2007, the City Council approved an"Affordable Housing Agreement (Attachments 7 and 8) for the first phase of Positano which consists of 247 lots. The agreement requires Braddock & Logan to provide 31 on-site affordable units in this first phase. The Affordable Housing obligation for the 3l affordable housing units will be satisfied with a combination of both integrated units, secondary units and the payment of in-lieu fees. In order to address the affordable obligation for subsequent phases of Positano, Braddock and Logan has submitted a request to initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Anderson property (Attachment 9). The Applicant proposes to amend the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation of the Anderson property from Medium Density to Medium-High Density in order to address the direction from the City Council to integrate market rate units with the proposed affordable units. ANALYSIS: General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Braddock & Logan's Affordable Housing Proposal includes 88 units (87 affordable units and 1 manager's unit) to be constructed on the Anderson property to satisfy the remaining affordable housing obligation for the Positano development. As noted above, the City Council directed Staff. to work with the Applicant Page 3 of4 .. ... . /cX1 ~2/' to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units into the proposed project on the Anderson property. The current General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Land Use Designation for the Anderson property is Medium Density. The Medium Density land use designation permits a maximum of 98 residential units on the Anderson property as shown in Table 4 below: General Plan/Specific Plan Land Use Acreage Density Range Min-Max Density Medium Density (current designation) 7 ac 6.1-14,0 units/ac 42-98 units Medium-High Density (proposed designation) 7ac 14.1-25,0 units/ac 99-175 units Table 4 Braddock & Logan proposes to study the feasibility of a 108-unit apartment project on the Anderson property to address the direction of tpe City Council to incorporate market rate units with the 88 affordable units. However, the 108 residential units exceed the allowable maximum density for the site. Therefore, Braddock & Logan is requesting Initiation of a General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study to change the land use designation from Medium Density to Medium-High Density (Table 4) to allow 108 residential units on the Anderson property (Attachment 9). The request to initiate General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study includes a conceptual Site Plan and Building Elevations (Attachment 9). If the City Council initiates the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment Study, the conceptual Site Plan and Building Elevations would be subject to a Planned Development Rezone with Stage I and 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review. The Planned Development Rezone and Site. Development Revie,,' Permit would 'De reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Coun:il at a later date, Therefore, no a:tion by the City Coun:il regarding the conceptual Site Plan and Eievations is required at this time. CONCLUSION: The City Council directed Staff to work with the Applicant to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units into the proposed 88 unit affordable project on the Anderson property. The existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation allows a maximum of 98 units on the Anderson property, The proposed GP A/SP A Study would allow Staff and the Applicant to explore the feasibility of incorporating additional units on the Anderson property. If the City Council authorizes a General Plan and Eastern. Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Anderson property, Staffwil1: . Determine the appropriate environmental review; . Examine the proposed alternative density and determine if the density is appropriate based on City policies and standards; and . Prepare a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review for the proposed residential development on the Anderson property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: I) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive presentation from Applicant; 3) Receive public comment; and 4) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the request to Initiate a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study; or 5) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying initiation of a General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment Study. Page 4 of 4 (~g 1217 Minutes of the City Council of the City of Dublin REGULAR MEETING-JULY 17. 2007 CLOSED SESSION A closed session was held at 6:30 p.m., regarding: I. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, Title: City Manager lremsAd~dwAgmoo: . Mayor Lockhart announced that City Staff learned on July 13, 2007, after the agenda was posted, that Jody Rhone, doing business as Len's Barber Shop, proposed to amend her lease with the Ciiy to vacare lJ)! JU~J} 31, 2007. Because the Council does not meet again until August 7, 2007, iT would be too lare to consider the proposed le:;:se amendment or August 7, 2007. Mayor Lockhart stated pursuant to Government Code section 54954.2, subdivision (b)(2) that the Council find there is a need to discuss the proposed lease amendment with the City Manager in closed session and to consider giving the City Manager authority to enter into the lease agreement; that the need to take such actions came to the attention of the City after the agenda was posted and cannot be deferred until the August 7, 2007 meeting; and that two items be added to the agendafor tonight's meeting, asfollows: (1) A Closed Session pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 to read as follows: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: APN 941-1560-007-01 City Negotiator: City Manager Richard Ambrose Negotiating parties: Len's Barber Shop and other tenants Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING July 17,2007 PAGE 267 A..U....""t..____L fK' 1 ~c:(:2-/ 7 AND V ARIOUS CITIES LOCATED WITHIN THOSE COUNTIES FORMING THE EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY ... . RECESS 9:41 p.m. Mayor Lockhart called for a short recess. All Councilmembers were present when the meeting reconvened at 9:49 p.m. ... SAN RAMON VILLAGE PLAZA DEVELOPMENT - PUBLIC ART 9:50 p.m. 8.1 (900-50) Heritage & Cultural Arts Supervisor presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council will receive a proposal for an art mural by local artist Gary Winter to be installed . at the San Ramon Village Plaza Development. In June, the Heritage & Cultural Arts Commission reviewed the artwork and location and unanimously recommended apDroval oy me Council. Mr. Winter has proposed a large 12 ft. wide x 16 ft. high mural entitled "Home" that will be painted on the outside wall on the northeast corner of the development. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Cm. Oravetz, and by unanimous vote, the City Council approved the artwork. ....--. INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECQ-fIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3457 CROAK ROAD 9:56 p.m. 8.2 (420-30/410-55) Senior Plil.nner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the Anderson property is located north of 1-580 and east of Croak Road in Fallon Village (formerly EDPO) and included within the East Dublin Specific Plan. Staff was previously directed to work with the Applicant to study the feasibility of incorporating market rate units into DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES . VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING July 17,2007 PAGE 287 (i) /30 ~ 2-/7 the proposed 88 unit affordable project on the Anderson property. The existing General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation allows a maximum of 98 units on the property. The proposed GPAlSPA Study would allow Staff and the Applicant to explore the feasibility of incorporating additional units on the Anderson property. Cm. Sbranti asked about secondary unit. Mr. Baker clarified this is a granny unit such as secondary unit over a garage. Cm. Scholz clarified if they approve this it gives an opportunity for up to 108 units. Cm. Sbranti stated the applicant is asking for 20 additional units. The Council will determine whether to approve the study for mixed units. Jeff Lawrence, Braddock & Logan, talked about their request. Their intent is not to build 175 units, but they have submitted a plan for 108 units to incorporate the market rate units. On motion of Cm. Sbranti, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand, and by unanimous vote, the City Council adoDted .' . RESOLtJTIlON NO. 138- - 117 APPROVING THE INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AND EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY FOR THE ANDERSON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3457 CROAK ROAD (APN 905-0001-006) . PARTICIPATION IN THE CLIMATE PROTECTION PROJECT FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY JURISDICTIONS 10:09 p.m. 8.3 (530-50) Assistant City Manager Joni Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that in an effort to improve environmental practices, Stopwaste.org has partnered with the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and initiated an effort to understand, quantify and reduce the activities that may contribute to the release of green house gases within Alameda County. The City Council will consider approving the City's DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING July 17, 2007 PAGE 288 -