HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 203-08 Schaefer Rnch Environ ImpactRESOLUTION N0.203 - 08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE 1996 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003,
and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021) PA 08-005
WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council of the City of Dublin ("City Council") approved a
Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Resolution No. 77-96); an Ordinance and Resolution approving a Planned Development
Rezone (Ordinance No. 15-96 and Resolution No. 78-96); and a Resolution certifying an Environmental
Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No.
95033070), which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by
reference (Resolution No. 76-96); and
WHEREAS, the project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and
related features: a total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residences, 389 single family detached
dwellings and 74 attached residential dwellings; retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-
serving retail and office center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second,
smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580; public and semi- public uses including a
recycled water reservoir, a water storage tank and street rights-of--way; and parks and recreation uses
consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park
District trail, trail head facilities and related improvements. The Schaefer Ranch EIR examined the direct
and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures for development of the
Schaefer Ranch project. It identified certain unavoidable significant impacts of the Schaefer Ranch
project relating to impacts on secondary effects on native plants and wildlife, regional pollutant emissions,
cumulative loss of open space and landscape alteration, and cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts;
and
WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by Resolution No. 77-96
concluded that the substantial public benefits of the project, including job creation, increased City sales
and property tax revenues, increased housing opportunities and a concomitant improvement of the City
Jobs/Housing Balance, supported approval of the project; and
WHEREAS, in 1998, the Planning Commission approved VTM 6765 (Resolution 98-38) and
created 466 residential lots, and commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels for Schaefer Ranch.
The Final Map 6765 on the proposed Project site, Schaefer Ranch South, created 12 estate lots, 24 single-
family lots, and a 5.69-acre commercial parcel on approximately 41.5 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC ("Applicant"), requested in 2007 that
the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to modify the General Plan Land Use
Designations for certain portions of the project site; and
Reso No. 203-08, Adopted 11/4/08, Item 6.1 Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicant's request and initiated a
General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South project (Resolution No. 154-07); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted applications for a modification of the Schaefer Ranch
project to allow the construction of up to 140 single-family units on the Schaefer Ranch South project site.
The applications include: a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with
Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000, and a Development Agreement. The
GPA is for approximately 81.3 acres to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-
Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential
(0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space. The PD rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan
revise the zoning and development plan. The Development Agreement vests development approvals for a
specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties. The
vesting tentative subdivision map creates individual building lots on the Project site. These entitlements
are collectively referred to as the project or proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the overall Schaefer Ranch project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR contained
474 residential units and approximately 10.7 acres of commercial uses. Approval of the modifications to
the Schaefer Ranch project under the proposed project will result in a total of 406 residential units, open
space, and property designated to allow public or semi-public uses, including a children's day care center;
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 is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already
approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for
proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public
Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 are met; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, City Staff prepared an Initial Study to determine if further
environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3 due to modifications to the
approved Schaefer Ranch Project under the proposed project. The Initial Study, dated October 2008, is
attached to this Resolution Exhibit A. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the
standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR
pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been
prepared, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. The Initial Study and Addendum
have been available to the public at the Planning Department at City Hall. CEQA does not require that the
Initial Study and Addendum be circulated for agency or public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum and Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission
together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on October 14,
2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-28 recommending City Council approval of the
CEQA Addendum; and
Reso No. 203-08, Adopted 11/4/08, Item 6.1 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on November 4, 2008, at
which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 4, 2008 was submitted to the City Council analyzing
the Project and recommending approval of the Addendum; and
WHEREAS, before making a decision on the project, the City Council considered the Addendum,
Initial Study and the Schaefer Ranch EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council used its independent judgment and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before approving the Addendum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does
hereby make the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is
required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the
Addendum, Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch EIR and, the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and
City Council, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings
constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the
findings are set forth in the Addendum, Initial Study, Schaefer Ranch EIR and elsewhere in the record.
Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are
incorporated herein by reference:
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously approved
Schaefer Ranch Project that will require major revisions to the Schaefer Ranch EIR due to new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified
significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed
Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Schaefer Ranch Project which were
previously addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed Project will not result in
substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR
All previously adopted mitigation measures for the Schaefer Ranch Project will apply to the
proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The proposed Project also will not result in new significant impacts that were not analyzed
in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of
the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR.
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or
meet any other standards in Sections 21166 and 15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin that:
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because
there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under
Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met.
Reso No. 203-08, Adopted 11/4/08, Item 6.1 Page 3 of 4
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines
section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or
conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The City Council does hereby adopt a CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as
Exhibits A and B, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Schaefer
Ranch South project.
4. The City Council has considered the information in the Schaefer Ranch Final EIR, Initial Study,
and Addendum and adopted the Addendum prior to approving the land use entitlements for the
proposed 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 November, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Hildenbrand, Oravetz, Sbranti, and Scholz and Mayor Lockhart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST•
P
C/ity Clerk
~''.'
~'
Mayor
Reso No. 203-08, Adopted 11/4/08, Item 6.1 Page 4 of 4
5~ ~8~-
SCHAEFER RANCH
UNIT 2
PA 08-005
INITIAL STUDY
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner:
October 2008
EXI3IBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 1
R~CFp~A~~
OCY 0 6 2008.
®tl~L1~8 ~i.A~tNI~It;
_, ~~,~v
Table of Contents
i
i
Introduction ..............................................................................................................
2
Applicant ................................................::................................................................. 2
Project Location and Context
.................................................. ............................
2
Project Description ........................... ......... 3
..........................................................
'~ Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
14
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 16
',
Attachment to Initial Study .....................................................................................
29
1. Aesthetics ........
................................................................................... 30
2. Agricultural Resources ..................................................................... 33
3: Air Quality ......................................................................................... 34
4. Biological Resources .........................................................................: 36
............................................................................
' 5. Cultural Resources
38
6. Geology and Soils .............................................................................. 39
E 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................:................................. 42
S. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................. ......... 44
9. Land Use and Planning ...................................... ......................... 48
10. Mineral Resources .......................
...................................................... 48
11. Noise ................................................................................................... 49
-~ 12. Population and Housing .............:.................................................... 51
~ 13. Public Services
...................................................................................
52
14. Recreation
..........................................................................................
i
56
15. Transportation/Traffic
.....................................................................
57
16. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................... 61
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................ 64
Initial Study Preparers ............................................................................................. 65
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ...:.................... .. 65
References ..................................................................:.............................................. 65
$~~~2-
City of Dublin
Environmental. Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and City of Dublin
Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study assesses the potential environmental
impacts of implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The proposed
Project is a modification of a project already approved by the City -the Schaefer Ranch
Project. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in an environmental
impact report that was certified by the City in 1996 (Schaefer Ranch Project/General
Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 95033070
(Schaefer Ranch EIR or 1996 EIR).
For the potentially significant impacts identified inthe Schaefer Ranch EIR that apply to
the proposed Project, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are incorporated
into this Initial Study by reference.
Applicant
Discovery Homes
4061 Port Chicago Highway, Suite H
Concord CA 94520
Attn: Doug Chen, RCE, LS
(925) 803- 2617
Project Location and Context
The Project analyzed in this document is a portion of the larger Schaefer Ranch
_' development project, identified as Unit 2 of Schaefer Ranch. The overall Schaefer Ranch
development contains approximately 500-acres of land located in the western portion of
the City of Dublin and adjacent to the western City limit of Dublin. More specifically,
the Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at the western
terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of current Ci of Dublin Ci limits.
ty ty
I' Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the
Schaefer Ranch in context with the City of Dublin and the I-580 freeway.
This Initial Study analyzes proposed land use changes that would affect the
approximately 81.3-acreUnit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch located on the southwest
corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. For the purposes of this Initial
Study, this area is identified as the "Project" or the "Project Site." The Project Site is
shown on Exhibit 3.
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~ ~,~y
i
Existing land uses adjacent to the overall Schaefer Ranch include vacant lands to the
north and west, vacant lands and residential uses to the east and the I-580 freeway to
the south. Properties south of I-580 include the Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian
facility and vacant lands within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County.
Project Description
Background
The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and prezoning was approved by the City
of Dublin in 1996. Subsequently, the Ranch was annexed into the City of Dublin and
Dublin San Ramon Services District. A vesting tentative subdivision map and a
development agreement were approved by the City of Dublin in 1998.
The project analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
included the following land uses and related features:
!, A total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residences, 389 singe family
detached dwellings and 74 attached residential dwellings;
• Retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail and office
~ center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second,
smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580;
• Public and semi- public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a water
--; storage tank and street rights-of-way;
j Parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that
includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District trail, trail head
- ~ facilities and related improvements. A private homeowners' association
i recreation facility was also approved;
• Approximately 89 acres of the Schaefer Ranch would be devoted to other non-
-~ buildable open spaces, including but not limited to wildlife habitat areas,
~ drainage retention areas and a reconstructed creek corridor.
Primary access is provided by the westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard and the
construction of Schaefer Ranch Road, a north south arterial roadway that crosses under
the I-580 freeway to connect to Dublin Canyon Road south of the freeway.
A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was subsequently approved by the City of Dublin
for 466 total lots on the Schaefer Ranch. The original approval also included extensive
grading and recontouring of the site and extension of utilities and services to support
proposed uses.
Significant portions of the Schaefer Ranch have since been constructed. To date, the
Project developer has regraded the Schaefer Ranch property, re-subdivided portions of
the overall property into 302 lots and, extended Dublin Boulevard, constructed Schaefer
Ranch Road, dedicated trails to the East Bay Regional Park District, constructed a water
storage tank and stormwater retention basins and completed major water and sewer
lines.
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
Io~lBv
Development Concept for the proposed Project
The proposed Project includes amending the Dublin General Plan, a vesting tentative
subdivision map, a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement to delete
the currently approved approximately 5.69-acre retail commercial site on the southwest
corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, 12 estate lots and 24 single-
family on the south side of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of the retail
commercial site. The location and design of currently approved General Plan land uses
are shown on Exhibit 4. These uses would be replaced with up to 140 single-family
detached lots.
Exhibit 5 shows proposed General Plan land uses. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed
vesting subdivision map for the proposed Project.
If approved, the build-out number of dwellings on the entire Schaefer Ranch would be
406 dwellings, which is less than originally approved and fewer dwellings analyzed in
the 1996 EIR, which was 474 residential lots and 5 acres (gross) of commercial uses.
The proposed Project would also include construction of a children s day care center on
a portion of the Project Site, located south of Dublin Boulevard and east of Schaefer
Ranch Road. This facility, known as "Happy Talkers," would consist of a freestanding
building of up to 14,375 square feet, with associated parking and a play area. The
facility would be owned and operated by Happy Talkers, Inc.
The Happy Talkers facility would consist of a two-story 14,200 square foot building.
The initial phase of the facility would include 6 classrooms, 18 teachers and up to 60
children enrolled in the program on the ground floor, increasing to 12 classrooms, 36
teachers and 120 students.
Access and circulation
_ The currently approved land use configuration, with the retail designation and custom
lots, includes a local road that would have served the estate lots and single-family lots.
The road was planned to extend in asemi-circular, half-loop fashion on the south side
of Dublin Boulevard. A small cul-de-sac was planned on the east side of the semi-
' circular road.
The proposed road system to accommodate proposed uses would include a modified
semi-circular road from Dublin Boulevard, but would also contain more cu-de-sac
streets off of the main access road as well as a small modified road grid in the
approximate center of the Project site.
Access to the Happy Talkers site would be provided by two driveways along Dublin
Boulevard.
One feature included in the proposed land use configuration is a linear paseo and
greenbelt extending south from Dublin Boulevard to Road 2. The purpose of this paseo
is for pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Dublin Boulevard to a scenic vista. This
vista provides a view of the local foothills to the south.
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA OS-005
i i ~ ~~y
Grading
The Project Site has been mass graded pursuant to a grading permit issued by the City
of Dublin. Additional minor grading would be needed in order to excavate for
proposed roadbed and house pads. Trenching and excavation would also be required
for underground utilities.
Infrastructure
As identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, the Project developer would provide a range of
underground utilities to serve the proposed 140 dwellings and the day care facility,
including potable and recycled water, wastewater, telecommunication, natural gas and
electrical service.
Requested entitlements
As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by
the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this Project. These are
described in more detail below.
General Plan Amendment: Existing land use designations on the Project Site include
"General Commercial" on the retail commercial area and "Estate Residential" on the
residential portions of the Site. The Estate Residential land use designation allows
single-family detached dwellings on large lots at a density between 0.01 to 0.08
dwellings per acre.
An amendment to redesignate the Project site to "Single Family Residential" is
required to implement the proposed Project. This designation allows detached
single-family dwellings at a "density range between 0.9 to 6.0 dwellings per acre.
A related part of the General Plan Amendment would change the land use
designation of the 0.55-acre Happy Talkers site and the adjacent 0.65-acre site held
for a possible future fire station to the "Public/ Semi-Public" land use designation.
Slope areas on the Project Site north of the I-580 freeway and west of the residential
area would also be redesignated to the "Open Space" land use designation.
Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan. The existing
Planned Development zoning that permits a mix of retail commercial and estate
residential uses would need to be changed to permit single-family and. the day care
land uses.
A Development Agreement that vests development approvals for a specified period
of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties.
Issues typically addressed in development agreements include density and intensity
of land use, timing and financing of infrastructure, determination of impact fees and
obligations to construct public facilities, such as streets and roads.
Tentative and Final subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the
City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project site.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
0
U
O
O
C
O
O
U
~:
m
m
m
.'S
u
O
'J
u
3
W
CITY OF DUBLIN
SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2
INITIAL STUDY
,.,
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
N
0 2 4 6 8 10 miles
0
t
U
m
I m
~ m
b
.~
v
p
i `-I _ ~= -
~---
`~ ._.i ,
\ j ~ :;-_
~ ~,
~~o ~,
~~
U,~
,
1
. .~~~~
1
\ , 1
`, ~ z
_, o
~ ~
~ z
` ~
RtiW Cn
¢v
a
• ~_~ Hacienda Dr. w
` ~ J
a
` Arnold Rd ~
o •-----•--- .
I:J::,.
`
~ ~
W ¢~
OWE ~
4
w 2 _
i 'w`az Y U
i ~ ¢
` y
z
~ ¢ '-------••--- a
a r
~
~ Y
R
`
1~~ I
DoucherN Rd. /
•t
~~ ~ .
Z `
O •~
a
Z
Q
~ ~
r Sa ~
O • • n Ramon ~d~~
U
"' -~~
w
~ • ~.1
~`
~r
,~
~.~: _!~-
~~ I
05~ GDJ~
~~P
c/,~~~o
L
•~
%I N~a`
1~ o~ lS z
~ ~
.
~
z
=
=
v ~ ~
a ~ ~,
a
~o
I
W
V
W
Q
N ~ a
_ I
a
O
z- Q-a~
N
F-
Z
x
U
_Z Z
J ~.
oLLc
~` w N
O
J
/N V ~
V A Z
l~2
f - ~..~.~._...~
-ti_L~ .
I
1
I
~ m
a
!'
1
~ ,~
I
I
1
1 '~
i' ;
1 \ ~
I J` ~
I,
' ~ N ~'
~ f
^ I i
P. ~. ~ I f
1
t`
1
f~
%~
a
U
.e
.o'
0
U
m
m
.N
P
:_
.,
~..
M Q
~ Q
J
W N
I--
Z
z
a
W
LL
W
V
N
Z_
2
!-
~~
~~
-~
o~
mo
V m
~ N
O
a` ~
z~~
N
F
Z
x
U
Z Z
J' ~
m ~
0 LWL O
LL W to
O
aJ
}= a
H U F=
U to z
.
"
•
.•
'Ranch Rd. '•.
......
e
.~
{
~
~~
Scha6
g'~ PN~
pL
••
E
~
~
.
'••
R~s`
~~ •
....
..
J Q ~
...
}
J
WW
Z ~ Q
~ ~
~ QU
ac oc
CW7 p ~
" W
W w ~
V .
j~ c7U
Z W
~ ~
J
Q
F- ~
Q Z
~ W
N~
W N
W
i
s
i
c
C
c
~Q,,, ~C3 ~i-
Z
J
~
~
~
J
N Q
~ W ~
= N W =
o
m
N
a ~ Z
W Z ~
c
J ~
H
W
'y
0
v
a
V
n
c
0
i
0
0
N
N
Z
U
Z Z
. Q
J ~
0 LWL D
WO W y
aJ
H U
U !n ?
I
C)sm
mwa
a N ......... ,,.~~
•
••.
.~•
• .......••• Ranch d.
Schae ;
'•
~
.~~
••
.
'
a
a
J
~
-
Z
~ Q W
~ a ~` w O
~
LLZ w
JD
W
J Z W
C
7
Z~ N~
N
~
~ J
a
W~H
m ~ ~ W Q
C y LL~ J J~
_p
~ W ~~W
¢
LL
~ fp
N Q
W
~
W ~
w
J C
Z N
~, J ¢
y -~ Q ~
F- g
Z Q
0
c~
fA 2
h
W
SINGLE Fq~y~~Y
R~S/Q~ U
hr~q< d
W Q ~pJ W
~
~ !~ _
I
~~
~~v ~ ~S ~
Z
a
J
a
~
J
N Q
~
++ V~. Z ~
O
m
N
~ p W
x p ~
w Z p
~
J N
a
O
n.
~~
0
N
H
Z
2
U
Z Z
. Q
J ~
m ~
~ ~ D
~" W ~
Q Q J
~=a_
U tU ?
~~~ i~Z
Exhibit 6
PROPOSED VESTING
TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP
SOURCE.• Isakson & Assoc. Inc., 9-18-2008.
CITY OF DUBLIN
SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2
INITIAL STUDY
1g~ I~y-
1. Project description: Construction of up to 140 single family residential
dwellings and a 14,375 square foot day care facility
that would replace an approved 5.b9-acre retail
commercial site, l2 estate and 24 single-family
residential lots on a 81.3-acre portion of the Schaefer
Ranch development in West Dublin. The revised
development plan also includes minor modifications
to the local road system. Land use entitlements
include a General Plan Amendment, a Planned
Development rezoning, Site Development Review
and a subdivision map.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
3. Contact person: Jeff Baker
Senior Planner
(925) 833 6610
"' 4. Project location: Southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard (extended)
__, and Schaefer Ranch Road within the Schaefer Ranch
development
5. Project sponsor: Discovery Homes
6. General Plan designation: Existing: General Commercial and Estate Residential
(0.01-0.8 du. / ac.) & Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0
dwellings per acre)
Proposed: Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du. / ac.),
Public-Semi-Public & Open Space
7. Zoning: Existing: PD-Planned Development-General
Commercial & Estate Residential
Proposed: PD-Planned Development-Single Family
Residential, Public-Semi-Public and Open Space
8. Public agency required approvals:
• Approval of Amendment to the General Plan (City of Dublin)
• Approval of PD-Planned Development Stage 1 & Stage 2 rezoning
and Development Plan (City of Dublin)
• Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for Happy
Talkers (City of Dublin)
• Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin)
• Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
Iq ~ 18i-
Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board)
Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
c~fl ~{ 18 Z
(~
i
I
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project,.
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
- Aes etics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population
Housin
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation
Circulation
- Utilities Service - Mandatory
Systems. ,Findings of
Si 'ficance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
_~ On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
~ environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I find that the 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 the 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.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
o`~ I ~P 181i
~Y
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed
Project. An Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report will
~ be prepared. , /~
Signature: ~ ~~~/ Date: Iy~~ ~ 0$
Printed Name: J~~'f' ~ ~-r For: ~'7 'f' ~`~~
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
a~ ~ ~gv
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead .agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account. of the whole action involved, 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) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant; less-than-significant with mitigation, orless-than-significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect maybe significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to aless-than-significant level (mitigation measures from, Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
a3 a~ 18 v
,~
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist
references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.
general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should, where appropriate,
include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Page 17
October 2008
a~f~lSy
_~
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: 2, 4)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
~' but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 2, 4)
I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
I or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 2, 4)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 5)
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-
e agricultural use? (Source: 2)
~ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2)
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. 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, 5)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2, 5)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 18
October 2008
025 a~ ($ 'L
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?
(Source :2, 5)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 6)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 2)
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)
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)
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: 2, 4)
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, 4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 1,5)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitination Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X '
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
Page 19
October 2008
a~ c~ ISz
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)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2)
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)
ii) Strong seismic ground- shaking (Source: 2)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
' liquefaction? _ (Source: 2)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 2, 4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
~' topsoil? (2, 4)
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)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2) 'I
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
~,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 20
October 2008
~ a~ ~ ~Y
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: 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)
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)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 5)
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: 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 of public use
airport, would the project. result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2)
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)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 5)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 21
October 2008
a~ ~ ~~ ~
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 2, 4)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g, the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (Source: 1,
2,3)
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 insubstantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site? (Source: 5)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 2)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 2, 3)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2, 3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact .Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
a~~l8y
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2, 3)
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? (Source: 4)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(Source: l)
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 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,
4)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1)
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: 1)
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:l)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (Source:
2)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 2)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (Source: 2)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 23
October 2008
v' noPlB~
~~
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (Source: 2)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Source: 2)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2)
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, 3)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
- ~ necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (4)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
~ housing elsewhere? (Source: 4)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
!~ physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, 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, 3)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti Qation Less than.
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Page 24
October 2008
31 oP y& 2
JS
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, 3)
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: 5)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (Source: 2)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (Source: 2)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(Source: 2)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (Source: 2)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (2)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(Source: 1)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Page 25
October 2008
3a ~ i~ y
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (Source: 2, 3)
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?
(Source:. 2, 3)
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? (Source: 2, 3)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (Source: 2, 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? (Source: 2, 3)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (2, 3)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (2)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti Qation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 26
October 2008
~ ~,~v
b) Does the project have impacts that. are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the. effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact.
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Dublin General Plan
2. Schaefer Ranch Final EIR
3. Discussion with City staff or service provider
4. Site Visit
5. -Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
~ The following EIR was used in the preparation of this Initial Study: "Final
Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/ General Plan Amendment"
` WPM Planning Team, April 1996, SCH #95033070.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR which was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project of which the proposed
Project is a part. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains mitigation measures which apply to
this Project. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR for
potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
The Schaefer Ranch EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study
pursuant to the standards in CEQA Guideline section 15150. A copy of this EIR is
available to the public for review at the Dublin Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin CA during normal business hours.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
3~f ~ 18~
i
the Project which were not evaluated in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and which would
require additional environmental review.
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
~^
Page 28
October 2008
v~~ Igy
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The Schaefer Ranch site contains a mix of rugged ridges and canyons, woodland, open
grasslands and rock outcroppings. Pursuant to previous approvals granted by the City of
Dublin, portions of the overall Schaefer Ranch property has been graded and recontoured to
accommodate future land uses allowed pursuant to the Dublin General Plan, zoning and other
land use entitlements.
Although a substantial. portion of the Schaefer Ranch property has been graded, other portions
have either been preserved as permanent open space or open space preserves have been
created on the site to replace special-status species habitat that has been impacted.
The 81.3-acre Project Site has been graded as part of the overall mass grading of the Schaefer
Ranch project and is generally flat and contains no trees, rock outcroppings or other natural
features. The General Plan land use designation for the south facing slopes included in the
Project Site on the north side of I-580 would be changed from "Estate Residential and Retail
__~ Commercial" to "Open Space" as part of this Project.
Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of the Project Site.
As a largely rural, undeveloped area, minimal light sources exist on the Project Site.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identifies significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce
anticipated visual resource impacts to aless-than-significant level. Applicable impacts and
mitigation measures include:
• Impact 5A identified a significant impact with regard to alteration of the site character.
This impact noted extensive landform alteration on the Ranch, including ridgeline
removal, filling of canyons and creation of an urban landscape. Mitigation Measure
5A.1 requires approval of a subsequent grading plan for the property that relies on
matching natural contours to the extent feasible, limitations on the extent of grading
and preservation of existing trees. Mitigation measure 5.A.2 requires approval of a
master landscape plan for each phase of the project, with special provisions for visually
sensitive areas, use of appropriate plant materials adjacent to natural open space areas,
use of plants to screen buildings and development of a long-term landscape
maintenance program:
• Impact 5B noted a significant impact of proposed Project construction on the Rowell
Ranch Rodeo Park and I-580 freeway south of the site. Development of the project site
would change the visual character from both of these viewpoints. Mitigation Measure
5.B.1 requires planting of landscaping, placement of berms and use of setbacks to
substantially reduce the impact of the Proiect from the I-580 freeway and the Rowell
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~ ~Q ~~i
lr
Ranch facility. Mitigation Measure 5.B.2 requires that future site grading be
accomplished to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation Measure 5.B.3 requires the issuance
of a conditional use permit by the City for the commercial component of the Project to
ensure that future structures are screened from view and signs are controlled.
• Impact 5K noted a significant impact related to light and glare from commercial uses
onto nearby properties, including parking lot lighting, security lighting and illuminated
signs. Mitigation Measure 5.K.1 requires lighting for commercial uses to be pedestrian
scaled and to minimize light and glare onto surrounding areas.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts '
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. Approval and implementation of
the proposed Project would result in no new or more significant impacts than identified
in the 1996 EIR impacts regarding scenic vistas, since no such vistas currently exist on
the Site. Approval and implementation of the Project would provide for a new scenic
vista at the southerly terminus of the proposed Paseo Trail and Greenbelt.
' Exhibit 7 is a simulation of the Schaefer Ranch site taken from the Rowell Ranch Rodeo
Park, south of the Project Site. The existing (pre-Project condition) shows the Project Site
in a natural open space condition with trees and vegetation as seen from some visitors
to the Rodeo Park. The. row of single-family dwellings depicted on the right side of this
Exhibit are part of the larger Schaefer Ranch development and are not part of the
proposed Project. These structures would be visible on the left portion of the Exhibit.
- Although the proposed structures would represent a different condition than the
currently approved project that includes a mix of dwellings, a day care facility and a
commercial center, the view of the proposed Project would not be significantly
noticeable from the Rodeo Park. Although the proposed Happy Talkers structure could
_ be as tall as two stories, the impact of a similar commercial development was
envisioned in the 1996 EIR (Impact 5B, Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park/I-580 View of
-~ Schaefer Basin development. Mitigation Measure 5.B.3 requires the approval of a
conditional use permit for any commercial development on the Project site (Schaefer
Ranch). This mitigation measure further requires detailed evaluation of visual concerns
--~ as part of the conditional use permit and, in general, commercial structures and parking
area are to be screened from view. Signs shall also be controlled, although visibility of
signs may be appropriate for visibility.
Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic vistas
than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway?
NI. The Project Site has been previously graded as part of the mass grading of the
overall Schaefer Ranch property. The proposed Project would include replacing
previously approved land uses with similar uses, but at a lower intensity. The proposed
Project would include development of the proposed Happy Talkers facility on the 0.55-
acre day care parcel identified in the current project as well as reserving a future fire
station site.
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
3'1 ~1&z
Exhibit 7 shows the Project site prior to development and following completion of mass
grading. The Exhibit show that no substantial change to the visual character of the Site
from I-580 or Rowell Ranch would occur should the Project be approved and
constructed beyond that analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic
resources than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The proposed
Project would include replacing a commercial center and estate residences with single-
family dwellings and a day care facility on approximately the same site. The 1996 EIR
analyzed the impact of altering the entire Schaefer Ranch from a rural area to a more
urbanized development. The overall type and character of land uses included the
proposed Project would likely have fewer aesthetic impacts than were reviewed in the
1996 EIR, since the 5.69-acre commercial development, that would have included large
paved parking areas, signs and other features, is proposed to be replaced with single
family dwellings and a smaller day care facility.
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 the internal semi-circular road as well as new housing
and yard lights. New light sources on the Site would also include light fixtures
within the parking area of the Happy Talkers facility and lights on and within
the day care building. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 5.I.1 and 5.K.1
contained in the 1996 EIR will reduce light and glare impacts related to public
facilities and commercial uses by requiring that lighting associated with public
facilities be reviewed by the City to ensure that appropriate shields, lenses,
orientation are included with lighting fixtures. Mitigation Measure 5.K.1 requires
use of pedestrian-type lighting fixtures and orientation of light fixtures away
from nearby residential areas. With adherence to these measures, light and glare
impacts would be less-than-significant and there would be no new or more
significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008.
PA 08-005
3g ~ )g2
.~ __
~T d ~ ~~L y, ~ R
~
' i
'7C l
. t
_
.
f
~
J
F~
~ ~
~
'
_ . ~
`~~ ~ "
~ '~:,ex .~;
~ .~. .
_ 4 ~ v q~ as
_
. _ . ~ ~ yp ,~ ~ ,
V. r s+~': xx ~
~
jSIMULAT10N1
h ~ J4.1 ..wF1Y~~~
~~
~"
h~~ ~
~ F _ ~ fI
...._".-~ ~ ~.l
,..w. _
r-
1 ~r _ ~ ` ;
~.,, ' - ~--~z--. ~ ~ ~' a ~~.~~~.~,~.v.. ~~"x'~.,,,,; ~~;"`
__
x .;
,..r^`~'y^ f .~ ~r"'_"-"r":L's'-..r,..C-'~. °_ , .4 ''~` 1 4 .arm--~J.?.'S" r;>+:~t=..`
-..Y R-.
` -" ~,~a ~ - - - ~ ~, ~ ; z~ r-~
.
1
T
c ~:
), i e ~ ._
i
_, _ ~_ ~~
r ~. i ~ ._. - _ - ~ +' ~ ~ .
_ ~^ 7
+. K~ , t
SOURCE: Environmental Vision, October 2004.
~~ ~.~
~
~
a
~.
~
~
,
.'~' 4 ~ ]U1:
~71C. ~ ~I~.
~. ~ 1"
,,
~}~ ~ ._ P
a _ 1
~ ~ ~
CITY OF DUBLIN
SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2
INITIAL STUDY
Exhibit 7
VIEW FROM ROWELL RANCH,
LOOKING NORTH
2. Agricultural Resources
~~~gz
Environmental Setting
The Schaefer Ranch, including the Project Site, was historically used for agricultural
production and a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract was in effect on the
Schaefer Ranch at the time the 1996 EIR was prepared and certified. Since then, the
Williamson Act Contract no longer exists on the Schaefer Ranch and the Ranch is no
longer in agricultural production.
The Schaefer Ranch site is zoned Planned Development, which is not an agricultural
zoning district.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR notes that the Project Site was identified as a farmland with
only grazing importance, not prime farmland, due to the relatively steep topography of
the Site.
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following less-than-significant impacts associated
with agricultural resources: Impact 3.5A, discontinuance of on-site agricultural uses,
Impact 3.5B, loss of on-site farmland and Impact 3.5C, cancellation of a Williamson Act
contract on the Site.
~ Impact 3.5D was identified as a potentially significant impact. This impact noted
impacts on adjoining agricultural lands adjacent to the Schaefer Ranch. These impacts
would include predatory dogs from suburban dwellings harassing livestock and odor
impacts from grazing and livestock keeping onto proposed dwellings. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3-12 requires disclosure of on-going grazing for future Project
residents. Mitigation Measure 3-13 requires enforcement of leash laws for dogs.
~ Mitigation Measure 3-14 requires disclosure to future homeowners of the presence of
-~ flies and. odors from agricultural and livestock keeping. Mitigation Measure 3-15
- requires installation of fencing around grazing areas.
Project Impacts
a-c) Convert prime farmland to anon-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural us, including conflicts with
agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts ? NI. The Schaefer Ranch Project
site has been graded for urban uses pursuant to current General Plan land use
designation and current zoning. No agricultural uses remain on the Site and the
Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement formerly on the Site no longer
exists. No new or more significant impacts would therefore occur with regard to
agricultural resources beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The Project
applicant will be required to provide notifications to future homeowners
regarding protection of livestock (Mitigation Measure 3-12) and the presence of
nearby agricultural operations (Mitigation Measure 3-14). Appropriate fencing to
protect on-going livestock grazing is also required per Mitigation Measure 3-15.
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~ ~ rat
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The Project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional. air basin
~, distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin
is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air
quality impacts from the development of the Schaefer Ranch. Applicable impacts and
mitigation measures include:
• Impact 12A identified a significant impact with regard to temporary increases in
dust and particulate emissions during earthmoving operations. Mitigation
~ Measure 12.A1 requires implementation of dust control measures during site
grading earth moving and excavation operations to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. Such measures include but are not limited to frequent
~ watering of graded areas, limiting speeds of construction vehicles on the site and
i sweeping of public streets
• Impact 12B found that emissions from construction vehicles would be a
j potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation measure 12.B.1, which
requires limited idling of construction equipment and reduction of grading
activities during period of poor air quality, would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
__~ Impact 12 D identified a significant impact from regional pollutant emissions in
j the form of increased vehicle trips to and from the Project. Adherence to
' Mitigation Measures 12.D.1, implement control measures that are specified in
attainment plans, and 12.D.2, provide physical facilities in the Project design
would reduce regional emissions but not to ales-than-significant level. This
impact was therefore found to be significant and unavoidable.
• .Impact 12E noted a potentially significant impact with regard to emission of local
carbon monoxide. Based on the analysis in the EIR, emission of carbon monoxide
was found to be below threshold levels and was ales-than-significant impact.
• Impact 12F, on-site fuel combustion, was identified as a potentially significant
impact and adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.F.1 will reduce this to a less-
than-significant impact. This mitigation would restrict on-site fireplaces or stoves
to either gas burning units or units that have been EPA-approved. Conventional
open hearth fireplaces are not allowed.
• Impact 12G included a significant impact from miscellaneous dust sources
leaving the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.G.1, that requires
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~i ~ ~$Z
adherence to the Bay Area Air Quality Management fugitive dust rules, would
reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to these mitigation measures and current air
quality regulations enforced by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(B~Q~)•
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The
BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan is based on population and growth assumptions
projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). For the proposed
Project, the applicant is requesting a change in the type of residential units,
elimination of the 5.69-acre commercial complex, and addition of Happy Talkers
day care center. As noted in the Population section of this Initial Study (see Section
10), under the proposed Project, the overall number of dwellings on the overall
Schaefer Ranch site is 406 units which would be less than the project originally
approved by the City of Dublin and analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 units). Vehicle
trips associated with the proposed Happy Talkers facility would be the same as
analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see analysis in the Transportation and traffic section
below). The proposed Project would therefore be generally consistent with the
Clean Air Plan and this would not represent a substantial change to the project
analyzed in the previous EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those
analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? NI. The 1996 EIR identified regional
pollutant emissions as Significant and Unavoidable impacts. The proposed Project
proposes residential development and day care facility within the Schaefer Ranch area in
a manner consistent with the previous approvals on the site and within the parameters of
the 1996 EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Table 2 within the
Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study demonstrates that the total daily
vehicle trips would be less under the proposed Project than the project analyzed in the
1996 EIR. Therefore, regional pollutant emissions from the proposed Project would same
or less and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as identified in 1996
EIR.
In terms of construction-level air quality impacts, as conditions of grading plan approval
by the City of Dublin, the applicant is required to have their grading contractor
undertake dust and wind-borne erosion control methods listed in Mitigation Measure
12G.1 of the 1996 EIR, 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 number of daily vehicle trips are
anticipated to be less under the proposed Project than the original, 1996 project as
demonstrated in Table 2 contained in the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial
Study. Therefore, air quality emissions would be same or less than 1996 project.
Since the certificat7on of-the 1996 EIR, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse
gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern in this State
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
Ala ~ 9~~
as evidence by the passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation
or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gases and climate change
under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions
and climate change was not analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Since the 1996 EIR has been
certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and climate change
needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (See discussion under Section XVII Earlier
Analysis above). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be
analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at
the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" and shows a new significant
impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3).) Greenhouse gas and climate
change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been
known at the time the 1996 EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and
greenhouse gases was widely known prior to 1996. The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The
regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was
being extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies
and analysis of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at-the
time of certification of the 1996 EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new
information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration.
No environmental analysis on the Project's impacts on this issue is required under
CEQA.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? The proposed Project
would result in a net decrease of 60 single-family dwellings from the total number of
dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned
Development zoning. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch
development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in the
1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors?
NI. The proposed Project is a typical residential development project and does not
include manufacturing or similar land uses, no objectionable odors would be created.
Although the Project would include a day care facility that would be occupied by
children, there are no nearby generators of odors, such as manufacturing uses. No impact
would therefore result.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a number of biologically important biological
communities, .including annul grasslands, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak
woodland, riparian woodland, freshwater emergency wetland and stock ponds. The
Schaefer Ranch has been mass graded to allow for urban development, although
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~3 ~ ~y
portions of the Ranch have been preserved and / or reconstructed as riparian habitat,
oak tree preserve areas and other open space areas to protect biological resources.
The Project-Site within the Schaefer Ranch has been included in the completed mass
grading operation and therefore contains no trees, creeks or other natural features.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified that the Project Site contained a number of significant
biological resources, including a stand of coast live oak trees, and cost live oak/bay riparian
vegetation mixed with annual grasslands.
The 1996 EIR contains a number of impacts and mitigation measures regarding biological
resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures
include:
• Impact 6C identified loss of approximately 245 acres of grasslands as a
potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.C.1 required reseeding of
disturbed grasslands with native grasses. Preconstruction surveys for presence of
burrowing owl was also mandated as part of this measure.
Impact 6D noted a loss of oak woodlands and other heritage trees as part of the
development proposal, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure
6.D.1 requires completion of a tree survey before grading and retention of
heritage class trees (18-inch diameter at 20 inches above grade) to the extent
feasible. Mitigation Measure 6.D.2 requires implementation of protection
measures for trees that are to be preserved. Mitigation Measure 6.D.3 requires
planting of replacement trees on the site at a ratio of 3 replacement trees for each
1 tree lost.
• Impact 6E identifies secondary impacts to native plants and wildlife, including
"escape" on non-native plants into the environment and impacts to native
wildlife of domestic pets. Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 requires Project landscape
plans to emphasize use of native plant materials. Mitigation Measure 6.E.2
requires enforcement of Dublin's leash law. Even with adherence to these
- -~ measures, Impact 6E would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Impact 6F found that runoff of herbicide sprays could enter natural plant
communities and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 6.F.1 requires restrictions of application of herbicides will
reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to these biological resource mitigation
measures.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, orspecial-status species? NI. The
_' Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of special status plant and wildlife species that
could occur on the Schaefer Ranch property. Specifically, the Project Site included
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
y ~ ~ig~
stands of coast live oaks and coast live oak/bay riparian vegetation along with annual
grasslands.
Since certification of the 1996 and approval of the original land use entitlements, the
entire Project Site has been graded to accommodate future buildings and roads. As
required by Mitigation Measures 6.D.1, 6.D.2, and 6.D.3, surveys for sensitive tree
species were completed, tree protection measures provided for trees to be preserved
and replacement trees provided for as part of proposed Project landscaping.
As a result of mass grading of the entire Schaefer Ranch property, no plant or wildlife
species or habitats exist on the Site. As required by Mitigation Measure C.6.1, a
preconstruction survey was completed for burrowing owl prior to commencement of
grading activities. Therefore, approval and construction of the Project would not have
new or more significant impacts on candidate, sensitive or special-status plants or
wildlife or their respective habitats beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat, other sensitive natural
communities or federally protected wetlands? NI. No creeks, streams, wetlands or
waters of the US or waters of the state were identified on the Site in the 1996 EIR.
There would be no impacts with respect to riparian habitats, sensitive natural
communities or federally protected wetlands. No new or more significant
impacts would therefore result with regard to riparian habitats, sensitive natural
communities or federally protected wetlands than were analyzed in the previous
EIR.
d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. No creeks
or streams exist currently on the Site so there would be no interference with
native fish migration. The proposed design of the Site also includes an unfenced
paseo that extends through the Site that would allow wildlife migration. No new
or more significant impacts would therefore result with regard to this topic than
was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? NI. There
would be no conflicts and no impacts with any local policies regarding biological
resources should this Project be approved and constructed. Any trees formerly
growing on the site were removed prior to or as part of the mass grading of
Schaefer Ranch.
f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Plans? NI. -The Project area is not located within the boundaries of a
habitat conservation plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan area.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settiri~
_ ~' A cultural resources survey of the Schaefer Ranch was .undertaken as part of the 1996
EIR. Prehistoric findings were limited to one isolated chert flake and a possible bedrock
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
i
mortar which were not located on the Project Site. These finds were not conclusively
determined to be of prehistoric origins.
The Project Site is vacant and contains no structures.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures regarding cultural resource
impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include:
• Impact 14A identifies a potential impact with regard to prehistoric resources that
may not have been identified in previous cultural resource surveys of the
Schaefer Ranch. This impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level by
adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1 that requires work to stop within a 100-
. foot radius of the discovery of any cultural resources and for the City to prepare
a work plan consistent with CEQA Guidelines to ensure that such resource is
properly evaluated and treated. If necessary, monitoring of this site by a
qualified archeologist maybe required.
This mitigation measure will continue to apply to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resource or human remains? NI.
No structures exist on the Site so there would be no impact with regard to
historic resources.
b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological, paleontological
resources or human remains? NI. The Project Site has been mass graded and no
significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological or Native American
remains were discovered. Minimal additional grading would be required for
building foundations and trenching for on-site utilities. Based on a discussion
with the project representative (pers. comm. D. Chen, 5 / 21 / 08) the depth of such
additional grading would be minor, approximately 10 feet into an existing 100-
. foot deep fill area, and would not exceed the depths of completed grading
activities. Therefore, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1, there would
be no new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic than was
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
The 1996 EIR noted the presence of several soil and geotechnical conditions on the
Schaefer Ranch Site.
Coluvial soils, which are composed of clay and silty clay are found in ravines and
swales leading to main stream channels. Alluvial deposits are generally located in a
_, drainage course in the northern portion of the Ranch. A large portion of the Ranch was
underlain by historic landsides.
i
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
l ~f~ ~ X82
As noted in the Project Description portion of this Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch has
been substantially graded and landslide areas remediated.
The Schaefer Ranch does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone. (formerly Alquist
Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence .earthquake
susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville
Faults.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of impacts and mitigation measures related
to soils and geology. The following are applicable impacts and mitigation measures that
', will continue to apply to the current Project:
• Impact 9A identified a significant impact related to mass grading of the Ranch,
which would have the effect of removing natural vegetation and wildlife habitat
as well as possibly causing landslides and slope failures. Mitigation Measure
9.A.1 requires City approval of a grading plan consistent with City standards
and that also- would reduce visual impacts and satisfy geotechnical requirements.
Mitigation Measure 9.A.2 requires that grading activities be balanced to
eliminate the need for off-haul of material.
• Impact 9B identified a significant impact with regard to slope stability, since
much of the pre-Project soil conditions exhibited the presence of historic
landslides. Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 would reduce landslide and
' slope stability impacts to a less-than significant level. These measures require
remediaton of historic landslides, control of surface and subsurface drainage,
removal of soils that are susceptible to "soil creep," establishment of setbacks
from landslide hazard areas, use of appropriate engineering designs to ensure
slope stability and formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to ensure
long-term maintenance of slope areas.
• Impact 9C found a significant impact with regard to erosion impacts of grading
activities off of the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.C.1 through 3
~' would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level by requiring adherence
to asite-specific erosion control plan, implementing erosion control measures
during construction and incorporating permanent erosion control measures into
the development, including creek bank revetments and slope seeding.
• Impact 9D identified an impact with regard to fill settlement. The 41.5-acre site
has already been filled consistent with Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 9.D.5.
Impact 9E identified an impact related to expansive and corrosive soils.
Expansive soils could damage building foundations and other improvements
due to shrinking and swelling of clay soils. Corrosive soils could impact
underground utilities, foundations and concrete in contact with soil. Mitigation
Measures 9.E.1 through 3 are included in the EIR to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. These measures require geotechnical investigations for
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
4~ ~~~z
_,
shrink-swell potential, special foundation designs to deal with expansive soil and
control of moisture content to minimize soil shrinking and swelling.
Impact 9F identified an impact related to seismic hazards, including strong
ground shaking and possible surface rupture. Secondary seismic effects could
include landsliding, liquefaction and soil lurching. Adherence to Mitigation
Measures 9.F.1 through 3 would reduce seismic hazards to aless-than-significant
level. These measures include completing detailed analyses of seismic hazards
for individual development projects to evaluate the effects of groundshaking and
rupture as well as secondary effects and a determination of specific construction
techniques to minimize these effects. The mitigations also require incorporation
of earthquake resistant design for all structures and mapping of inactive faults in
the Project area and incorporation of remedial measures for inactive faults on
Project structures.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? NI. The potential for impacts related to ground-based seismic hazards,
specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or other ground failure was
addressed in the 1996 EIR (Impact 9F) and adherence to Mitigation Measures
9.F.1 through 3 reduced these impacts to aless-than-significant level. To comply
with these mitigation measures, site-specific soils and geology reports were
completed by Alan Kropp & Associates (1997) and ENGEO (2004). The reports
include specific construction measures to minimize groundshaking, ground
failure and landslides that have been followed for previous grading and will be
followed for future construction on the Site. These reports are hereby
incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at
Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. These measures continue to
apply to this portion of the Schaefer Ranch development project. There would
therefore be no new or more significant impacts with regard to seismic impacts
than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? NI. Refer to
Hydrology section Sa for a discussion of this topic.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. The 1996 EIR noted
Impact 9E; expansive and corrosive soils, within the Schaefer Ranch area. The
1996 EIR determined that with adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 through
3, impacts related to unstable and expansive soils, including lateral spreading,
liquefaction and similar hazards would beless-than-significant. Similarly,
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 will reduce impacts related to
landslide and slope stability to aless-than-significant level. With adherence to
these and other soil and geology impacts contained in the 1996 EIR, there would
be no new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic than was
analyzed in the 1996 EIR
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Page 41
October 2008
~t~ ~Q~~z
i~
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NL
Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary sewers provided
by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The 1996 EIR noted that several areas of the Schaefer Ranch property was found to
contain hazardous and potentially hazardous materials, including areas contaminated
with petrochemicals associated with vehicle storage and maintenance, insecticide
residue from agricultural operations, refuse disposal sites and several power poles and
transformers that could contain PCBs.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified one impact related to hazards and hazardous
materials. Impact 15A found that the potential presence of hazardous materials on the
Ranch property in close proximity to planned residential and similar uses would be a
significant impact. Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through 4 are included in the EIR to
reduce this impacts to aless-than-significant level. These measures call for removal of
hazardous materials, including electrical transformers with potentially hazardous
materials, abandonment and destruction of on-site wells and additional hazardous
materials analysis if found on the Ranch during construction. These measures continue
to apply to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. There would be no impact with regard to
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed Project
involves construction of a residential development Project. Although a normal and
customary amount of paint, solvents, -lawn care chemicals and similar substances
would be used and stored on the Project Site, these would not be used, stored or
transported in any significant quantities.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? NI. The Project Site has been graded and filled with approximately
100 feet of fill material. Prior to the grading operation, the applicant was required
by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 of the 1996 EIR to remove hazardous materials from
the site, remove above-ground electrical power transformer, close existing wells
and septic system facilities and assess other hazardous materials on the Site. A site
investigation of the Project site was completed by ENGEO, Inc. to fulfill this
mitigation measure on June 19, 2008. This letter is hereby incorporated by
reference into this document and is available for review at Dublin Civic Center
during normal business hours. No existing dwellings exist on the Site that could
release hazardous materials into the atmosphere. No new or more significant
impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the
1996 EIR
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~"I ~I$~
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. No
public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the Project Site,
based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities Plan,"
published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts Consulting,
Inc.), although a private day care facility would be located on the Project Site.
Adherence to mitigation measures to remove any hazardous materials on the Site,
as required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR will ensure
that there would be no impact with regard to this topic. There is therefore no new
or more significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996
EIR
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The Project Site is not listed by the
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified
hazardous site as of May 22, 2008. There is therefore no new or more significant
impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the previous EIR.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI.
The Project Site is not located near any public airport or private airstrip. No
impacts would therefore occur.
g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project
would include construction of a residential Project on private land. No emergency
evacuation plan would be affected since no public or private roadways would be
blocked. No impact would therefore 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? NI. The Project area is
located in a substantially urbanizing area, although wildlands do exist near the
Project site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.2 through 7.3.5 contained in the 1996 EIR will
apply to the Project to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. These
measures require installation of a irrigated border of fire-resistant vegetation with
a minimum width of 30 feet, provision of diced fire breaks, use of fire resistant
construction materials, provision of adequate emergency access and, as a condition
of tentative subdivision map approval, require a fuel management plan to reduce
the fire fuel load. With adherence to these measures, which will be required
following the requested land use entitlements, no new or more significant impacts
with regard to wildland fire have been identified than was analyzed in the 1996
EIR.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~ ~~ti
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water
The Schaefer Ranch area drains into two major regional watersheds: Palomares Creek
and Dublin Creek. These two are divided by Skyline Ridge
'i The western portion of Schaefer Ranch, including the Project Site, is located within the
jurisdictions 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. The eastern portion of the Ranch is located within Zone 2.
Existing drainage facilities
As part of recent construction on the overall Schaefer Ranch site, the Project developer
has received approval from the City of Dublin, Zone 7 and Alameda County for a
Master Drainage Plan for the Ranch (pers. comm. Doug Chen, 5/22/08). Pursuant to the
approved Master Drainage Plan, a number of drainage facilities have been constructed
on the Ranch, including but not limited to underground drainage lines, swales and
water quality ponds.
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
-,i 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 Francisco Bay.
In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
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.
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial-Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~l~~~z
_,
~' Groundwater recharge
The Project Site is not located near any major creek and has been filled with
approximately 100 feet of earth material that precludes groundwater recharge. The
.Project Site is not designated for groundwater recharge purposes under the Dublin
.General Plan.
Flooding
The most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map for the western portion of Dublin
Community Panel #060705 0001B) does not include the Schaefer Ranch property.
However, based on discussions with the City of Dublin Public Works Department (F.
Navarro, 5 / 23 / 08), the topographic elevation of the proposed Project Site is out of the
100-year flood plain.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures with
regard to flooding, drainage and water quality.
Impact 8.1A noted potentially significant impacts with regard to grading and
related impacts on drainage. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1, this
impact was reduced to aless-than-significant level. This measure called for
preparation of a master drainage plan for the whole of the Schaefer Ranch
property, provision of flood control improvements on and off the site,
coordination with other applicable agencies and ensuring design is consistent
with applicable drainage design standards.
Impact 8.2A noted that increased sedimentation would occur with development
of the Schaefer Ranch and would be a potentially significant impact: Adherence
to Mitigation Measures 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.4 would reduce sediment impacts to a
less-than-significant level. These measures require preparation and submittal of a
water quality report to the City of Dublin, DSRSD, the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and Zone 7 that includes specific construction techniques to
ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result to surface bodies of water.
The mitigation measures also require the abandonment and sealing of existing
on-site wells and septic tanks and provisions for ensuring water quality for any
open reservoirs located on the Ranch.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. The Project is also subject
to the requirements under NPDES / SWPPP regulations.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Approval and
construction of the proposed Project would add impervious surfaces to the Project
site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade
water quality. This impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR as Impact 8.2A and, with
adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.2.1, this impact was reduced to a less-than-
significantlevel. The Project applicant has completed and submitted the water
quality report required by this measure (Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division,
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
.~a ~igy
6/2/08). The Project applicant will be required to continue adherence to this
Mitigation Measure for final grading operations on the Project Site.
As part of the approval of the. grading plan and Master Drainage Plan, the City of
Dublin required the Project developer to meet current surface water quality
standards included in the Alameda County Clean Water Program (pers. comm.
Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5 / 23 / 08). Any subsequent
grading activities will also be required to adhere to 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures
and surface water quality standards enforced by the City of Dublin.
Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to water quality
standards have been identified in this Initial Study than was analyzed in the 1996
EIR.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. No
impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since
the proposed water source for this Project would rely on surface water supplies
from DSRSD and not on local groundwater supplies. No local wells would be used
to supply water to the proposed Project. The Project Site is not designated as a
groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? NI. Although new impervious surfaces would be
added to the Project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways
and similar surfaces, this impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see Impact 8.1A,
Grading and Impacts on Drainage). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1,
which requires preparation of a Master Drainage Plan and Mitigation Measure
8.1.6 that requires installation of erosion improvements for unlined drainage
channels, ,this impact was reduced to aless-than-significant level. The 41.5-acre
Project Site has been mass graded with approvals of a grading plan and in
conformity with the City approved Master Drainage Plan. It is anticipated that
additional fine grading would be required to create individual building pads and
related improvements on the Project Site: Subsequent grading activities on the Site
will be required to conform to the approved Master Drainage Plan and all other
mitigation measures contained in the .1996 EIR to ensure that no significant
alterations to drainage patterns, stream courses or that significant amounts of
siltation or erosion would occur.
Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic is therefore
anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that
would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? NI. The Project Site has already
been graded based on a mass grading plan and Master Drainage Plan approved by
the City of Dublin and other agencies as required by Mitigation Measure 8.1.1.
Additional fine grading that would occur will be required to conform to Mitigation
Measure 8.1.1 to ensure that no additional impacts would occur to drainage
patterns or stormwater runoff. The developer is also required to adhere to
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
53 ~P ~gy
~l"
_~
Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requiring the Project developer to install flood control
facilities, and Mitigation Measure 8.1.5, that requires the developer to undertake
additional off-site flooding potential. Therefore, no new or more significant
impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding drainage patterns and
runoff than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? NI. The issue of exceeding capacities of
drainage systems or increasing the amount of polluted runoff was addressed in the
1996 EIR by Impact 8.1A. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requires the
Project developer to plan for an install necessary flood control and drainage
facilities to minimize downstream flooding, including installation of on-site
detention facilities. Appropriate storm drain and flood control facilities have been
incorporated into the Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and.
other regulatory agencies. The Master Drainage Plan includes the proposed
Project.
-~ The Project is also been required by the City of Dublin to incorporate Best
Management Practices to minimize runoff of polluted drainage (pers. comm.,
' Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/23/08). Therefore, no new or
more significant impacts with regard to drainage systems or polluted runoff not
. analyzed in the 1996 EIR would occur.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. This issue and has been addressed above in
item "a."
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of the 100-year flood plain and no impacts
would occur with regard to placing additional housing units within a 100-year
flood plain (pers. comm., Frank Navarro, 5/23/08).
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above. No impacts with regard to
hazards from dam failure were identified in the 1996 EIR.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project area 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 9B.1 through 8
contained in the 1996 EIR addressed impacts related to protection from landslide
and mudflows. The ENGEO soils report addressed the potential for landslide on
the Site and recommended steps to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
signiflcantlevel. These steps were incorporated into the mass grading plan for the
overall Schaefer Ranch. site as required by the Mitigation Measure and No new or
more significant impacts than was analyzed in the previous EIR are therefore
anticipated with regard to landslides and mudflows.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
5~f ~I&y
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is currently vacant. and contains no structures.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. -The Project Site is vacant and is part
of the larger Schaefer Ranch planned community, currently under construction.
There are no dwellings or residents on the Site. No impact would therefore occur
should the Project be approved.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? LS. The proposed Project would be
inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of "General
_- ~ Commercial" on the retail commercial area and "Estate Residential" on the
residential portions of the Site. Neither of these designations allow the type and
density of land use envisioned as part of the Project.
The applicants have requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to
redesignate the Project site to a combination of "Single Family Residential" "Open
Space" and "Public-Semi-Public" land use designations. This Amendment is
required to implement the proposed Project. This designation allows detached
single-family dwellings at a density range between 0.9 to 6.0 dwellings per acre.
The "Public-Semi-Public" land use classification would be applied to the Happy
Talkers site and reserved for a future fire station site. This designation allows for a
day care centers.
If this application is approved, the Project would be consistent with the Dublin
General Plan, since it would be consistent with the land uses and the density range
specified in the General Plan. No other land use plan or policy conflicts would
exist and there would be aless-than-significant impact with regard to this topic.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
The Project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural
community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study. There are
no impacts with regard to this Project.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The 1996 EIR identifies the presence of no significant mineral deposits in the Schaefer
Ranch area.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
5~ ~ ~z
--I
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
j The 1996 EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the
Project area, so no impacts would occur.
11. Noise
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.
Regulatory setting
The Noise Element of the 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 I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
~'pe•
Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acce table Conditionally
Acce table Normally
Unacce table Clearly
Unacce table
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools, churches,
nursin homes 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Neighborhood
arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
The major sources of noise near the Schaefer Ranch site is traffic noise from the I-580
freeway, immediately south of the Site. The 1996 EIR estimated that the 60 dB Ldn noise
contour extended approximately 1000 feet north of the centerline of the freeway
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The following noise impacts and mitigation measures are contained in the 1996 EIR.
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~i
• Impact 11A identified construction noise generated by grading of the
Schaefer Ranch site as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11.A.1
requires that existing residents near the Schaefer Ranch be moved off-site
~~ during construction, or that grading activities be phased to limit duration of
grading.
Impact 11B noted that future residents on a portion of the Schaefer Ranch site
(the Schaefer Basin, which is the location of the current proposed Project)
would be impacted by noise from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, by on-site
vehicle noise. To mitigate this impact to ales-than-significant level,
Mitigation Measure 11.B.1 requires each Project developer to prepare and
submit a precise noise control plan identifying how City noise exposure
levels will be met, including but not limited to building treatments,
construction of noise barriers and other techniques. Mitigation Measure
11.B.2 required a redesign of the Project where anticipated noise levels would
exceed 70 dB Ldn.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the current Project.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? NI. Development of
proposed Project could expose future residents and visitors on the Site to
si nificant noise levels from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, Dublin Boulevard.
,i Pu suant to Mitigation Measure 11.B.1, the Project applicant has submitted a
~ detailed noise study prepared by Charles Salter Associates in August 2005. This
report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study document. This
report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department
' during normal business hours. The 2005 report concludes that, with the regarding
~ of the Project Site, all future residential lots adjacent to the I-580 Freeway would
have exterior noise exposure levels of 60 decibels on the CNEL noise scale,
' consistent with the City's Noise Element. The Happy. Talkers day care facility also
would have exterior noise exposure levels of 60 decibels on the CNEL noise scale,
consistent with the City's Noise Element for a day care/ school use
Based on adherence to Mitigation Measure 11.B.1, residents and visitors would not
be exposed to noise levels in excess of City standard and no new or more
significant impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI.
The proposed Project would include normal construction methods and techniques
typical of asingle-family subdivision. Similarly, the subdivision would not include
operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels,
so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. Therefore, no new or more
significant impacts would result with regard to vibration than were analyzed in
the 1996 EIR.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~, ~,~Y
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? NI. The 1996 EIR noted that
on-site traffic noise would be a minor component of noise on the Site (Impact
11A.). Increases in off-site noise as a result of traffic generated on the Schaefer
Ranch was identified as aless-than-significant level (see Impact 11E). The
proposed Project, if approved, would reduce the number of vehicle trips and.
1 associated vehicle noise on the Site (see Section 15 of this Initial Study,
Transportation) Therefore no new or more significant impacts would result than
were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? NI. Grading and construction activities on the
Project Site are limited to weekdays between 7:30 am and 5 pm by Mitigation
Measure 11.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR. No new or more significant impacts
have been identified in this Initial Study than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip, would the project
expose people to excessive noise levels? NI. The Schaefer Ranch site is not located near
-; any public or private airports or airstrips and no impact would result with regard
to this topic.
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments
organization 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 S million persons, a 16% increase over the current (2007) population.
Population increases are expected to be primarily due to increases in births and
longer life expectancies rather than significant in-migration.
Land uses shown in the existing City of Dublin General Plan have been included
in ABAG population and growth projections for the City and region.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified less-than-significant or a beneficial impacts
with regard to population growth (Impact 2A), housing stock (Impact 2B),
affordable housing (Impact 2C), employment (Impact 2D), jobs/housing balance
(Impact 2E), sales tax revenues (Impact 2F), property tax revenues (Impact 2G)
and competitive impacts (Impact 2H). No mitigation measures regarding
population or housing impacts were included in the 1996 EIR.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? NI.
Approval of the proposed Project would increase the permanent population on
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~58o~1~y
this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch Project. However, the total number of
dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the Project be approved (406
dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 dwellings) and entitled in
the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No impact with regard to substantial
population growth is therefore anticipated and no new or more significant impacts
regarding population growth have been identified in this initial study than were
identified in the 1996 EIR.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The Project Site is vacant and no housing units or people would be displaced
should the Project be approved.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the community:
• 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 No 16, located at
7494 Donohue Drive in western Dublin.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services.
• Library Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and-other governmental facilities
is the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified School District,
also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time
building permits are issued.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following impacts regarding public services:
• Impact 7.3C identified a significant impact with regard to Fire Department
emergency response times to the Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation
. Measures 7.3.1 through 6 will reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level.
_~ These measures require reservation of a fire station site and staffing of a new fire
station in western Dublin, imposition of fire protection measures on future
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
59~gy
__~
subdivision maps in the Schaefer Ranch and planting of fire resistant vegetation
surrounding dwellings on the Schaefer Ranch.
i. Impact 7.3D identified a significant impact related to meeting response times to
the Schaefer Ranch site by emergency vehicles. Individual developments in the
Schaefer Ranch will be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8
to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1
requires dedication of a fire station in West Dublin that would contain
j emergency medical response equipment. Mitigation Measure 7.3.8 requires an
educational program to residents focusing on emergency medical response
times.
• Impact 7.3E notes a significant impact with regard to wildland-structural fires,
that would be reduced to ales-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation
~ Measure 7.3.2 - 7.3.5. This measure requires planting of fire-resistant vegetation
between buildings and wildland areas, provide for emergency vehicle access and
discing of fire breaks.
~ Impact 7.3F identified a significant impact with regard to lack of fire hydrants in
the Schaefer Ranch area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.3, that requires
installation of DSRSD-approved fire hydrants within the Schaefer Ranch
development.
_~ Impact 7.3G noted an impact with regard to an increase of combustible materials
on the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1- 7.3.4 require measures such as the use of
appropriate materials as part of future construction, including Class A roof
material and non-combustible walls, such as stucco, installation of interior fire
sprinklers and similar techniques, to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant
~ level.
• Impact 7.3H noted fire impacts with regard to burning of vegetation on the
Schaefer Ranch that would be significant. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3..5
requires that landscape plans for the Project exclude high combustion plant
species in favor of fire retardant plants: The measure also requires approval of a
.fuel modification plan to reduce fuel load adjacent to future houses and that
perimeter landscaping be irrigated. With adherence to this measure, Impact 7.3H
is less-than-significant.
Impact 7.3I identified an impact with regard to street and road access into the
Schaefer Ranch site for emergency vehicles and to maneuver on the Ranch.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.6 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significantlevel by requiring roads within the Schaefer Ranch meet fire
department design standards, including appropriate road surfaces, maximum
gradients, length of cul-de-sac roads and similar items.
• Impact 7.3J noted potential impacts with regard to life safety impacts with
_j approval of the Schaefer Ranch project, including allowing sufficient time for
occupants to escape buildings in the event of an emergency. Adherence to
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~O~~BZ
Mitigation Measure 7.3.1, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 reduces this impact to a less-than-
significantlevel. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 is described above. Mitigation
Measures 7.3.7 and .8 require implementation of an education and self-inspection
program for. future residents to allow sprinklers to remain in place and
implementation of a Community Education Program focusing on medical
emergencies.
Impact 7.4A identifies a significant impact with regard to an increase in the
number of calls for service based on development of the Schaefer Ranch and the
need for additional police staffing and equipment. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 7.4.1 and .2 reduced these impacts to ales-than-significant level. These
measures require the Schaefer Ranch developer to prepare a budget strategy to
increase police staffing and equipment to serve the Project and that adequate
security services can be provided to regional trails in the area by East Bay
Regional Park District.
• Impact 7.4B notes a significant impact with regard to site security in terms of
visibility of dwellings and police response times. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 7.4.3 requires police department review of individual development
projects to ensure that safety and security components are included in project
designs, including proper visibility, access and similar components reduced this
impact to ales-than-significant level.
Impact 7.SA identified a significant impact with regard to other municipal
services, such as building and safety, engineering, planning, and general
governmental services provided by the City of Dublin. Other governmental
services are provided by Alameda County, including libraries, welfare and
similar functions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 will reduce this impact
to ales-than-significant level. This measure requires that the City of Dublin
analyze other municipal service costs to ensure that satisfactory services can be
provided as part of a Development Agreement.
• Impact 7.9A notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the amount of
solid waste generated by new land uses on the Schaefer Ranch site. The Schaefer
--! Ranch EIR includes Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. These measures requires the applicant to furnish the
City a "will serve" letter from the solid waste collector confirming that solid
waste collection and disposal services. are available to serve the Project and that
commercial portions of the Schaefer Ranch area provide on-site areas for
recycling.
Impact 7.10A identified an impact with regard to school district boundaries and
school facilities. When the 1996 EIR was prepared, neither the Castro Valley
Unified School District or the Dublin Unified School District had the capacity to
accommodate additional students generated by the Schaefer Ranch development.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.10.1 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significantlevel. It requires that, prior to residential occupancy, the City verify
that attendance boundaries between the two school districts have been resolved,
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Schaefer-Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~I ~~gy
that the Development Agreement for the Project provide for payment of school
fees by Project developers and that the applicable school district has been
consulted with regard to siting of any new schools required to serve the Schaefer
Ranch Project.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the currently proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? NI. The applicant is required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1
through 7.3.8 contained in the 1996 EIR that reduces impacts to the Alameda
County Fire Department to aless-than-significant level. These measures have been
satisfied to the City of Dublin (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division 6/ 12/ OS).
The proposed Project would result in fewer dwellings and a resident population
than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The current Project would also replace a 5.6-acre
retail commercial site with a small day care facility. Therefore, no new or more
significant impacts with regard to fire protection than analyzed in the 1996 EIR
have been identified.
b) Police protection? NI. Similar to fire protection, the Project applicant is required to
adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.4.1 through 7.4.3 contained in the 1996 EIR to
reduce police impacts to aless-than-significant level. To meet these measures, the
proposed Development Agreement will include a strategy to fund additional
police resources and the proposed Project has been reviewed by the Dublin Police
Services Department to ensure that safety and security features have been
included in the Project design (pers. comm., Val Guzman Dublin Police Services,
5/29/08). The proposed Project would also result in fewer dwellings and a lower
resident population than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The 5.6-acre commercial area
on the Project site would be replaced by a smaller day care facility.
The applicant also received written confirmation from East Bay Regional Park
District staff that the District Board accepted responsibility for regional trails and
other facilities within the Schaefer Ranch site (memo from Linda Chavez, EBRPD,
dated December 13, 2006).
Therefore, no now or more significant impacts with regard to police service than
analyzed in the 1996 EIR have been identified.
c) Schools? NI. There would be no impacts with regard to school impacts with
adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.10A contained in the 1996 EIR. Payment of
statutorily mandated impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will
comply with this mitigation requirement. The school district boundary between
the Castro Valley Unified School District and Dublin Unified School District is
currently adjusted to include the entire Schaefer Ranch site within the Dublin
Unified district. The boundary adjustment process is anticipated to be completed
at the end of June, 2008. Commencing with the beginning of the school year in the
fall of 2008, public school students residing in the Schaefer Ranch will attend
Dublin Elementary School. Wells Middle School and Dublin High School (pers.
comm., Kim McNeeley, Dublin Unified School District, 5 / 27/ 08). There, no new or
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~~y
more significant impacts would occur with regard to school impacts than were
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI. With
adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 contained in the 1996 EIR, that requires a
Development Agreement for the Project ensure that satisfactory financial resources
are devoted to other governmental services, no new or more significant impacts
would occur with regard to other governmental services. The pending
Development Agreement of the Project includes such analysis (per Jeff Baker,
Dublin Planning Division, 6 / 12/ 08).
e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 "e" and "f," below.
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no City or regional parks.
The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that local parks are
planned to be constructed north of the Project Site and a regional trail is planned to
extend through the approximate center of the Schaefer Ranch Project. The regional trail
has been completed and accepted by the East Bay Parks District. Astaging-area for the
regional trail is currently under construction.
' Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 EIR contains the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to
parks and recreation facilities.
• Impact 7.6A identified an impact to open space management issues within the
Schaefer Ranch, including balancing public use of open space areas and overuse
of environmentally fragile areas. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6-1
` requires preparation of an Open Space Management Plan that would identify
open space areas, specific issues and funding sources for open space areas.
Impact 7.6B notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the need for
additional parks within the Schaefer Ranch project to serve the anticipated
increase of on-site residents. Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 requires the
provision of local parks, a regional trail and payment of in-lieu park fees to the
City of Dublin for neighborhood and community parks. Park sites offered to the
City shall be reviewed for developability as a park in terms of geotechnical
considerations, availability of services and other conditions. With adherence to
these measures, Impact 7.6B will be less-than-significant.
• Impact 7.6C notes a potentially significant impact with regard to internal open
space, including on-going maintenance, fire suppression, weed abatement,
erosion control and slope stability. Mitigation Measure 7.6.5 requires the City of
Dublin to impose conditions of approval on specific development projects within
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~ ~3~~y
the Schaefer Ranch, including ownership of graded slopes with heights of 15 feet
or greater, maintenance of access points to open space areas, provision of a
permanent management entity for internal and perimeter open space areas.
Impact 7.6E relates to an impact with regard to the proposed regional trail and
other on-site trail facilities being consistent with EBRPD standards. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 7.6.8 and 7.6.9 reduces this impact to aless-than-significant
level. These. measures require the City of Dublin to verify that regional .trail
facilities and linkages are consistent with EBRPD standards.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI.
Approval and construction of the proposed Project would not increase the use of
nearby City and/or regional recreational facilities from that analyzed in the 1996
EIR, since the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should
the Project be approved (406 dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the 1996 EIR
(474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings).
Also, two local public parks are proposed to be constructed within the larger
Schaefer Ranch community that maybe used by residents of the proposed Project.
The proposed Happy Talkers component of the Project would also include a
private outdoor play area for use by the facility's students. The proposed regional
trail would extend along the easterly boundary of the proposed Project for access
by future Project residents. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4
by the Project applicant will reduce impacts related to increased use of parks to a
less-than-significant level. The Project developer has dedicated local parkland to
the City in compliance with Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 - 7.6.4 (per Jeff Baker, Dublin
Planning Division, 6/ 12/08). Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with
regard to use of parks would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. See item "a," above.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
~' The Project Site is served by Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial road that has
been extended into Schaefer Ranch. Dublin Boulevard links Schaefer Ranch with central
Dublin as well as providing regional access to the I-580 freeway. North-south access to
and from the Project Site is provided by Schaefer Ranch Road that intersects with
Dublin Canyon Road south of the I-580 freeway.
Public transit to West Dublin is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority that operates WHEELS, a fixed and demand based bus service in Dublin,
Pleasanton and Livermore. The closest bus line to Schaefer Ranch is Route 3 that
City of Dublin Page 57
' Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA OS-005
~4 ~,~y
extends as far west as the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive. Route
3 provides fixed weekday and Saturday service to Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda. Business
Park, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other points within Dublin.
As noted in the Recreation section above, a regional multi-use trail has been constructed
within the Schaefer Ranch site and dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. A
trailhead has also been built.
Dublin Boulevard has been designed to accommodate bicyclists (pers. comm., Frank
Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/28/08).
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following traffic and circulation significant
impacts and mitigation measures.
• Impact 4A identifies a significant impact with regard to additional traffic at the
Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection causing this intersection to
- ~ operate at an unsatisfactory level of service. Adherence to Mitigation Measure
j 4.A.1 would reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level and requires
developments within the Schaefer Ranch to contribute a fair share contribution to
~ a traffic signal at this intersection and associated widening of this intersection.
Impact 4B noted a significant impact with regard to future traffic at the San
Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of traffic from Schaefer
Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.B.1 requires the Schaefer Ranch developer to
contribute a fair share contribution to widening and improving this intersection
to accommodate future project traffic. With such a payment, this impact will be
l es s-than-significant
• Impact 4F identified an impact with regard to significant impacts at the Hansen
Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of Schaefer Ranch traffic.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.F.1 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the Schaefer Ranch project developer to contribute
a fair share portion of the cost of installing a traffic signal at this intersection.
• Impact 4G identified a significant impact at the Schaefer Ranch/Dublin Canyon
Road intersection due to future traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 reduces this impact to ales-than-significant level and
requires the developer to contribute a fair share amount of the cost to signalizing
this intersection and to making related improvements to Dublin Canyon Road.
• Impact 4H notes a significant impact with regard to future traffic at Schaefer
Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.H.1
reduces this impact to ales-than-significant impact by requiring the Schaefer
Ranch developer install a traffic signal at this intersection.
• Impact 4L identified a significant impact with regard transit access to the
Schaefer Ranch site, specifically that no pubic transit stops exist near the Ranch.
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Schaeter Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
65 q ~v
~I
Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 requires the City of Dublin to consult with public
transit districts o make necessary transit arrangements for future transit
provisions. The City shall require apark-and-ride lot, if appropriate, as well as a
transit stop, bus turning radii and other facilities to support transit.
• .Impact 40 identified a significant cumulative impact with regard to future traffic
conditions at Eden Canyon Road/Palomares Canyon Road and a I-580
interchange due to future traffic plus the Schaefer Ranch's. contribution to future
traffic conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 reduced this impact to a less-than-
Impact 4R identified a significant impact with the provision of pedestrian and
bicycle access within the Schaefer Ranch development and. with providing
regional linkages to existing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Mitigation Measure
4.R.1 through 4.R.3 reduced this impact to ales-than-significant level by
requiring Dublin Boulevard to accommodate bicycles, extending the
pedestrian/equestrian trial under I-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road and
providing proper signs and markings for trail crossings.
Project Impacts
a,b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and
street capacity or exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established
by the Countti~ CMA for designated roads? NI. The proposed Project would contribute
fewer peak hour vehicle trips to local~and regional roads than the currently
approved land use configuration on the Project Site. This is shown on Table 2,
below.
Table 2. Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison
Land Llse Quantity A.M. Peak Hour
Tri s P.M. Peak Hour
Tri s
1996 EIR Anal zed Pro'ect
Retail ~ 5.35 ac. 128 353
Office 5.35 ac. 112 104
Sin le Famil 400 dwellin s 296 404
Townhome 74 dwellin s 33 41
Total Tri s -- 569 902
Pr osed Pro"ect
Sin le Famil 406 300 410
Da Care 14,200 sf 182 187
Total Tri s 482 597
Net Chan a -87 ~ -305
Note: Trip rates based on Table 4-5 contained in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR, updated by City of
.Dublin staff
Based on the calculations contained in Table 2, fewer a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips
would result should the proposed Project be approved than was analyzed in the
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~ ~~ z-
1996 EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less impact to roadways
than the Project analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
As required by various mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR, the Project
developer has or will be required to install a traffic signal system at the Dublin
Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection as well as to pay fair share
contributions to improvements at the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard
intersection, the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Hansen
Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon
Road intersection, the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection and
the Eden Canyon Road-Palomares Road/I-580 interchange.
Based on discussions with the Dublin Public Works Department, the above
improvements have constructed, have been bonded for, or fees have been paid to
the City as required by the various 1996 Mitigation Measures (per Frank Navarro,
Dublin Public Works bepartment, 6 / 12/ 08).
Thus, no new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR
would result.
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. The Site is also not located near any public or private airport or
airstrip.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? NI. Approval of the
proposed Project and future development would add new driveways, sidewalks and
other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The Dublin
Municipal Code contains 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. The proposed Project includes two local roadway
connections with Dublin Boulevard, similar to the currently approved vesting tentative
map. Adequate emergency access to and from the Project Site would be provided per
Dublin Fire Department standards and as required by Mitigation Measure 7.3.6. No new
or more significant impacts with regard to emergency access would occur beyond those
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. No impacts to parking requirements are anticipated since
the project will be required to comply with City of Dublin parking requirements. The
adequacy of on-site parking facilities will be ensured through the SDR review process by
the City of Dublin. No new or more significant impacts would occur beyond those
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
g) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or
result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
67~~gv
includes features that would promote pedestrian and bicycle use as required by
Mitigation Measures 4.R.1- 4.R.3, including allowing bicycle traffic along Dublin
Boulevard adjacent to the Project and including a pedestrian paseo in the center of
the Project. No new or more significant impacts regarding alternative
transportation modes would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is currently served by the following service providers:
• Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
• Sewage collection and treatment: DSRSD
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries.
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell).
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 EIR contains the following significant impacts and mitigation measures with
regard to utilities and service systems.
Impacts 7.1A and 7.1B identified significant impacts with regard to lack of a
water system on the Project site and constraints on water supply. These impacts
were reduced to less-than-significant levels by adherence to Mitigation Measures
7.1.1 through 7.1.8. These measures require incorporation of water conservation
features into the project, designing and constructing water systems to meet
DSRSD engineering standards, construction of a new water reservoir on the site,
issuance of a will-serve water service letter from DSRSD, appropriate phasing of
the water system and similar elements.
Impact 7.2A was identified as a significant impact related to the adequacy of
wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures
7.2.1 through 7.2.12 would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level.
These measures require issuance of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD indicating
that adequate wastewater disposal capacity is available,. requiring the applicant
to update the local wastewater collection system master plan, requires the
Project developer to obtain wastewater connections from DSRSD, requires use of
recycled water for open space areas, requires annexation of the Ranch to DSRSD,
requires that all wastewater facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering
standards, requires that treated effluent from the Project meet Regional Water
Quality Control Board standards and other related items.
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA OS-005
l08 ~~$z
• Impact 7.2C noted a significant impact with regard. to disposal of treated
wastewater that will be reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to
Mitigation Measure 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4.
• Impact 7.2D identified a significant impact with regard to wastewater
improvements. Mitigation Measure 7.2.6 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
• Impact 7.9A noted a significant impact with regard to solid waste capacity.
Mitigation Measure 7.9.1
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. Mitigation Measure
7.2.8 contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR requires the Project to meet treated
effluent standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on
the will-serve letter issued by DSRSD for the overall Schaefer Ranch project,
adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exists to serve development
planned in the Schaefer Ranch development so that no new or more significant
impacts would result. The currently proposed Project would be less than the total
number of dwellings and the commercial development originally planned and
approved for this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch development.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
NI. Table 3, below, compares estimates water use for the proposed Project with the
amount of water anticipated for the Schaefer Ranch site and included in DSRSD's
Urban Water Management Plan 2005 update The table shows the types and
intensity of land uses included in the proposed land use plan would generate an
estimated 10,500 fewer gallons of water per day compared with currently
approved uses. The quantity of water use for approved land uses for the Schaefer
Ranch has been confirmed by DSRSD staff (Rhodora Biagton, DSRSD engineer,
6/2/08)
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~~ ~gv
Table 3. Estimated Schaefer Ranch Potable Water Demand in
Gallons Per Day (GPD)
Land Use Development
Quantity Generation Factor Est. Water Demand
(gallons/day)
Pro osed develo ment
Low Density
Residential 406 du 393 gpd 159,558
Ha Talkers 14,200 sf 0.05 sf d 710
Subtotal 160,268
A roved water use
Single family
dwellin s) 433 du 393 170,169
Commercial 0.6 ac'
6,817 sf 0.1 sf 681
Subtotal 170, 850
Total -- -10,582
Notes:
1) Approved water use based on a-mail from Rhodora Biagton to Jeff Baker, 6/2/08
2) Commercial development based on Table 6-4 of DSRSD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
3) Generation factor from 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
The issue of wastewater treatment facilities is addressed in subsection "a." above.
Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to water and
wastewater provision than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
~ c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Impacts related to drainage impacts and
mitigation measures from the 1996 EIR are contained in Section 8 of this Initial
Study Based on the analysis contained in that section, no new or more significant
~ impacts related to storm drainage facilities beyond those set forth in the 1996 have
been identified.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. See item "b," above.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? NI. See response to "a,"
above.
f) Solid waste disposal? NI. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1 contained in the
1996 EIR reduced the impact to solid waste facilities as a result of the proposed
Project to ales-than-significant level. This mitigation requires the solid waste
provider to issue awill-serve letter prior to issuance of a tentative subdivision
map. Based on information provided by Amador Valley Industries, the franchised
solid waste and recycle hauler for the City of Dublin, adequate capacity exists in
the Altamont Landfill to accommodate the quantity of solid waste generated by
this Project (per. comm., Karen Brighi, Amador Valley Industries, 7/ 21 / 08). With
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch. October 2008
PA 08-005
7~ °~15~
adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1, no new or more significant impacts beyond
those analyzed in the 1996 EIR with regard to solid waste would occur.
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 development applications 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 species or eliminate examples of major period of
California history or prehistory on the Schaefer Ranch site area have been analyzed and
mitigated in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed Project would cause no new or
substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those
identified in the previous EIR.
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). No. Significant and
unavoidable impacts have been identified with regard to secondary impacts on native
plants, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and cumulative loss of
vegetation and wildlife. The proposed Project 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 Page 64
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008
PA 08-005
~11 ~ 1$ v
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Jane Maxwell, report graphics
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
Frank Navarro, Senior Civil Engineer
Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
Val Guzman, Police Services Department
Dublin Unified School District
Kim McNeeley, Facilities Manager
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Rhodora Biagton, senior engineer
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Applicant Representatives
Doug Chen, Discovery Builders
References
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Website, May 2008
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan
Amendment, WPM Planning Team, 1996
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch
PA 08-005
Page 65
October 2008
~ ~,gv
,,~
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT Z
PA 08-005
October 2, 2008
On July 2, 1996?, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 76-96, certifying. an
Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment
("Schaefer Ranch EIR, SCH #95033070). The certified EIR consisted of a IDraft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes. The Schaefer Ranch EIR evaluated the potential
environmental effects of urbanizing the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch with a
mixture of residential, commercial, office, parks, public and semi-public and open space land
uses.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Unit
2 portion of Schaefer Ranch, as described below.
Project Description and Prior Approvals
The City of Dublin approved development of portions of the approximately 500-acre Schaefer
Ranch in 1996. The approvals included a General Plan Amendment, prezoning, annexation to
the City, Zone 7 and DSRSD, detaclunent from the Hayward Area Recreation and Parls
District, vesting tentative subdivision snaps and a development agreement.
Schaefer Ranch is located in-the western portion of the City of Dublin and adjacent to the
western City limit of Dublin. More specifically, the Schaefer Ranch is located on the north
side of the I-580 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of
current Dublin City limits.
The Unit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch is located south of Dublin Boulevard, north of the I-580
Freeway, east of current City limits and just east of Schaefer Ranch Road.
The current application includes an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, a Planned
Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map and a
Development Agreement.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Schaefer Ranch EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban
development planned for athen-largely undeveloped area west the City of Dublin. Numerous
environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigation measures were adopted upon
approval of the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. 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 the overall
EXHIBIT B TO
ATTACHMENT 1
Schaefer Ranch Unit 2
Addendum EIR-City of Dublin
October 2008
7~ ~gz
Page 2
Schaefer Ranch project that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to
the currently proposed Project. The Schaefer Ranch EIR is incorporated herein by reference.,
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the
appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the
City reviewed the Schaefer Ranch EIR to determine if any further environmental review is
required for the proposed General Plan, Planned Development Rezone and associated
applications for Unit 2 of Schaefer Ranch:
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated October 2008, and incorporated herein by
reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIIZ, 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 sa~bstantial changes to the Project ifivolvirag rretiv or »~iore severe sigi~~ifrccirzt
impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project from that analyzed in the 1996
Schaefer Ranch EIR. No increase in the number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer
Ranch are proposed as part of the Project. The Project on the Unit 2 portion of the
Schaefer Ranch would include a change in the type and density of uses and would not be a
substantial change. The Project changes would not result in any new or more severe
significant impacts than those analyzed in the 1996 EIR..No additional or different
mitigation measures are required from those included in the 1996 EIR.
This General Plan Amendment would replace the "Retail/Office" and "Estate
Residential" land use designations. A majority of the Unit 2 Project Site would then
be changed to the "Single Family Residential" land use designation.
A related part of the General Plan Amendment would change the "RetaiUOffice" land
use designation of the 0.55-,acre Happy Talkers site and the adjacent 0.65-acre site
held for a possible future fire station to the "Public/Semi-Public".land use
designation. Slope areas on the Project Site north of the I-50 freeway and west of the
residential area would also be redesignated to the "Open Space" land use
designation.
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 Schaefer Ranch EIR. This is documented in the attached Initial Study
prepared for this Project dated October 2008.
Schaefer Ranch Unit 2
Addendum.ElR-City of Dublin
October 2008
~~ ~ ~~-
Page 3~
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
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. 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 Schaefer Ranch EIR.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated October 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 deterinines 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 Schaefer Ranch EIR, adequately addresses 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 Initial Study, Schaefer Ranch EIR and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein
by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the
Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA.
~s ~ /az
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 Schaefer Ranch EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 77-96,
July 9, 1996). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to
approve urban development in the Schaefer Rarich project area through the various land
use approvals for the project.
The City has undertaken a study to analyze various modifications to the original
project, including changes to various land use entitlements to modify the approved 5.69-
acre retail commercial site as well as 12 estate and.24 single-family residential lots on a
81.3-acre portion of the Schaefer Ranch project area, known as Schaefer Ranch South. In
place of the approved commercial site, 12 estate and 24 single-family residential lots on
Schaefer Ranch South, the project would consist of construction of up to 140 single-
family detached lots, open space and public/semi-public uses (including, a children's day
care center). The proposed modifications to the land use entitlements and approvals for
the project include the following. A General Plan Amendment to redesignate portions of
the Project site to "Single Family Residential," "Public/Semi-Public" and "Open Space."
A Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan to permit single-family
and the day care land uses. A Development Agreement that vests development approvals
for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed
by both parties. A vesting tentative subdivision map to create individual building lots on
the Project. site.
The overall Schaefer Ranch Project approved in 1996 consisted of 474 residential
units, approximately 10.7 acres of commercial space; public and semi- public designated
areas, and approximately 162 acres of parks and recreation areas. With the proposed
modifications to Schaefer Ranch South, the overall Schaefer Ranch Project will consist
of: 406 residential units, 5.5 acres designated Public/Semi-Public uses (which allow a
children's day care center), and 397.5 acres of parks and recreation (including open
space).
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the
original land use approvals for development of the Schaefer Ranch project. (Resolution
77-96.) These original project approvals included future development of the areas
impacted_by the project. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City. Council must adopt a
new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that
apply to the modified project.l The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable
environmental effects- identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR will be substantially lessened
by mitigation measures adopted with the prior approvals, many of which have already
been implemented. These mitigations will apply to the development of the Schaefer
Ranch South project as applicable. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes
~ "...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 for a Better
Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App.4th 98.
Exhibit C ~o
ATTACHMENT 1
7b ~ ~82-
that the implementation of the overall Schaefer Ranch project, including the modified
Schaefer Ranch South project, carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects
as identified in the prior E1R. 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 project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Schaefer Ranch EIR.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified in the
Schaefer Ranch EIR and apply to the proposed project as part of the overall. Schaefer
Ranch project.
Vegetation and Wildlife Impact 6E.•' Secondary Effects on Native Plants and
Wildlife. The introduction of exotic plant species, pets, and other effects of human
occupancy would have adverse effects on the surrounding natural plant and wildlife
habitat.
Air Quality Impact 12D: Regional Pollutant Emissions. Vehicles associated with
the project would contribute to regional ozone emissions. Given the existing ozone
problems in the area, and regulatory requirements to reduce ozone emissions, this would
be a significant, unavoidable adverse impact.
Impact 18.4B: Cumulative Loss of Open Space (Private Rangeland) and
Landscape Alteration. Continuing urbanization in the region is converting private
rangeland to other uses. The project would contribute to less open space in the area.
Cumulative Impact 18.4D: Cumulative Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts. There is
a,cumulative loss of existing natural. vegetation and wildlife habitat to urban development
in the region which the project would contribute to,
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of
the Schaefer Ranch project approvals and development against the significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, as set forth in
Resolution 77-96 and determined that the unavoidable impacts were outweighed by the
benefits of Schaefer Ranch project, of which the proposed project is a part.
Now, in 2008, the City has reviewed the requested entitlements and modification
to the approved development for the Schaefer Ranch South portion of the Schaefer Ranch
project. The City prepared a CEQA Addendum for these changes based on an Initial
Study documenting that the project would not require the preparation of a supplemental
EIR or other supplemental document, pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and related
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. In adopting the Addendum, the City
Council determines that the Schaefer Ranch EIR adequately identifies and analyzes the
potential significant effects of the project. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA
2
~~~i8~
Guidelines section 15093, hereby determines that the significant unavoidable impacts
identified. in the Schaefer Ranch EIR that are applicable to the project are outweighed by
certain benefits resulting from the development and the need for and desire of the City to
implement its planning goals and policies. The City has carefully and systematically
planned for the incremental development of the Schaefer Ranch property. The City
Council determines that approval of the project would implement the City's overall long-
termplanning for the Schaefer Ranch project.
More particularly, and consistent with the prior Statement of Overriding
Concerns, the City will derive certain economic, legal, social, technological,
environmental, land use, or other benefits from implementation of the project. These
benefits include, but are not limited to: the creation of a substantial number of
construction jobs; increases in sales tax revenues for the City due to the projected higher
level of income of Project residents; substantial increases in property tax revenues; an
increase in housing opportunities in the City (including affordable housing); designation
of 385 acres-for open space (including dedicated trails); a 12.5 acre neighborhood park;
an improvement in the City Jobs/Housing Balance; the inclusion of socially beneficial
land uses in the area of the project zoned Public/Semi-Public, including a children's day
care center; a financial contribution of $1,500,000 to the City for the Dublin Historic
Park; monetary contribution to City Public Arts Program; reservation of Parcel K for
dedication as a fire station site for two years; and payment of various City fees, including
development impact fees to be used for needed City improvements and services.
3