HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 30-09 Springfld Montes SchRESOLUTION NO. 30 - 09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR A STAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL LOCATED AT
THE CORNER OF KOHNEN WAY AND BRANNIGAN STREET IN AREA F OF DUBLIN
RANCH (APN 985-0052-022 AND 985-0052-023)
PA 08-038
WHEREAS, the Applicant, VSS Holdings LLC, has requested a Stage 2 Planned Development
Rezone, Development Agreement, Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for the
Springfield Montessori School located in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, which
applications are on file in the Planning Division. These applications are collectively referred to herein
as "the Project" or "Springfield Montessori School"; and
WHEREAS, Springfield Montessori School consists of approximately 2.57 acres encompassing a
portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F located at the corner of Kohnen Way and Brannigan Street, in
the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted an Ordinance approving a Stage 1 Development
Plan on April 6, 2004 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (Ordinance No. 12-04, incorporated herein by
reference); and
WHEREAS, the Project is within the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City Council by Resolution No. 51-
93 and the Addenda dated May 4, 1993 and August 22, 1994 (the "Eastern Dublin EIR") (SCH
91103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the
Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project area is located in a portion of Dublin Ranch Planning Area F for which
the City Council previously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration on February 15, 2000, entitled and
hereinafter referred to as the "2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated
herein by reference) and a CEQA Addendum for Areas B/E/F on March 16, 2004, entitled and hereinafter
referred to as the "2004 CEQA Addendum" (Resolution No. 43-04 incorporated herein by reference); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the current
Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. The Initial Study, dated January 2009
is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Based on the Initial Study, the City
prepared an Addendum dated January 2009 (attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference)
describing minor changes from the previous approvals and finding that the impacts of the current Project
have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the 2004 CEQA Addendum, all of which documents are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a properly noticed public hearing on the Project
on February 24, 2009, and adopted Resolution 09-06 recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum;
and
Page 1 of 2
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development
of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and the California Court of Appeals
decision captioned Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103
Ca1.App. 4th, 98, 125, approval of the Project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on March 17, 2009, at which
time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated March 17, 2009 was submitted to the City Council analyzing
the Project and recommending approval of the CEQA Addendum and the project applications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum with the previously certified Eastern
Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Area F and the 2004
CEQA Addendum before making a decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council used its independent judgment and considered all reports,
recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and
made a part of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the CEQA Addendum and related
Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, for the Springfield Montessori School project pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached as Exhibit B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2009 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers, Biddle, Hart, Hildenbrand, and Mayor Sbranti
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Scholz
ABSTAIN: None
ATTES ,,,..
~~'l)T'( Ci ~ Clerk
/ v
~~~~
Mayor
Reso No. 30-09, Adopted 3-17-09, Item 6.2
Page 2 of 2
ADDENDUM
TO THE
EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
FOR THE
SPRINGFIELD MONTESSORI SCHOOL
January 2009
Leacl Agency: City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94~f
,~~,~r~~ ~ ~ ...
Table of Contents
CEQA Addendum to Dublin Ranch Area F ...............................................................:.....3
Environmental Checklist/ .................................................................................................7
Initial Study .................................................................... ..................................................7
Project Location and Context ...........................................................................................8
Project Description ......................................................... ..................................................8
1. Aesthetics ....................................................... ..................................................26
2. Agricultural Resources ................................... ..................................................27
3. Air Quality ..................................................... ..................................................28
4. Biological Resources ...................................... ..................................................31
5. Cultural Resources ......................................... ..................................................33
6. Geology and Soils .........:................ .... ..................................................34
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................. ..................................................36
8. H drolo and Water uali
Y gY Q ~' ........................ ................................38
..................
9. Land Use and Planning .................................. ......................_...........................40
10. Mineral Resources ....................................... .......:..........................................40
11. Noise ............................................................ ..................................................41
12. Population and Housing ............................... ..................................................42
13. Public Services ............................................. ...:..............................................43
14. Recreation .................................................... ................................................:.44
15. Transportation/Traffic .................................. ..........................:.......................45
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............ ..................................................50
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ......................... ..................................................52
References ...................................................................... ..................................................52
City of Dublin Page 2
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
CEQA Addendum to Dublin Ranch Area F
PA 08-038
January 2009
Introduction
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted
of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May
4, 1993, assessing a reduced development and project alternative. The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan for the reduced
area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second
Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. For identified impacts that
could not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development in
Eastern Dublin, that are applicable to this Project, continue to apply to the proposed project. The
Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference.
The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern
Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, many
implementing projects such as Dublin Ranch have been proposed, relying to various degrees on
the Program EIR.
The City of Dublin approved development of Planning Area F on March 21, 2000. The approvals
included a General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning/Stage 1
Development Plan for a combination of commercial and residential development. The Project
Site was designated for a High School (20 acres total) in the adopted Stage 1 Development Plan.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution No. 34-00
on February 15, 2000 for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F (SCH #1999112040, PA 98-068). This
project included an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to
reconfigure land uses within Plansung Area F as well as a Stage 1 Planned Development
rezoning, a Tentative Tract Map, formation of an assessment district and modifications to an
existing Development Agreement. The City Council Resolution No. 34-00 contained findings
that the Project would have impacts associated with the development of the property that would
be mitigated to a less than significant level with incorporation of the mitigation measures into the
project.
A CEQA Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR for Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B/F/E was
adopted by the Dublin City Council Resolution 43-04 on March 16, 2004. This Addendum
included an amendment to the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to reallocate
land uses within the three Planning Areas including the redesignation of the Project Site from the
High School to the Public/Semi-Public land use designation.
City of Dublin Nage
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
The applicant has requested approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review
and Conditional Use Permit for the construction and establishment of a Montessori School. The
proposed Project includes a 16,002 square foot daycare building and related improvements
including a playground, parking lot and landscaping. -
This proposal further identifies the Project for a portion of the Public/Semi-Public designated
land in D~zblin Ranch Area F. The 2004 CEQA Addendum which reviewed the change in
designation from High School to Public/Semi-Public on the Project site did not review a specific
project on the site.
CEQA
The State CEQA Guidelines provide guidance on the appropriate document for revisions to a
previously certified EIR. Section 15162 requires the preparation of a Subsequent EIR if the lead
agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or
more of the following:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe
significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004
CEQA Addendum for Planning Area F. The Project proposes to construct a
daycare on a portion of the 6.3 acre site designated for Public/Semi-Public uses.
The proposed use is compatible with the allowable uses identified in the City of
Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. 'The proposed facility
is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the adopted Planned
Development Zoning (Stage l Development Plan) for the Project site.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken
involving new or more significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in
the conditions in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative
Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum. The Project will be required to adhere
to all of the mitigation measures in all documents which apply to this Project.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not 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 d fferent 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
significant effect. The proposed Project would be consistent with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. The Project will be required to comply with all mitigation
measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIl2 mitigation measures and the in the
2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration which apply to this Project.
d) If no subsequent EIR level review is required, should a subsequent negative
declaration be prepared? No additional review is required based on the Initial
City of Dublin Page 4
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Study. The Initial Study concluded that the Project will not create any significant
impacts other than those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
•As discussed above, none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 has
occurred. Under such circumstances, Section 15164 requires the lead agency to prepare an
addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have
occurred. An addendum to be prepared as described below:
a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR
have occurred.
b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative
declaration have occurred.
c) An addendum need not be circulated' for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
d) . The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or
' adopted negative declaration prior to. making a decision on the project.
e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be
supported by substantial evidence.
The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the
proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR
and the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration and CEQA Addendum to determine if any
further environmental review was required for the proposed Site Development Review Stage 2
Planned Development rezoning.
This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 based on the
environmental checklist. The Addendum reviews the proposed Project which was not reviewed
in prior environmental documentation (construction of a project on the subject site was reviewed,
however, a specific project was not proposed at that time). Through the adoption of this
Addendum, the City has determined that the proposed changes do not require a subsequent EIR
or negative declaration under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City further
determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004
CEQA Addendum adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project.
City of Dublin Page 5
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines,. the Addendum does not need to be
circulated for public review. The environmental document will be considered with the prior
environmental documents before making a decision on this project.
The attached Initial Study, referenced Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration
and 2004 CEQA Addendum are all available for review in the Community Development
Department located in the Dublin City Hall at 100 Civic Plaza in Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 6
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
1. Project description
2. Lead Agency:
3. Contact Person:
4. Project Location:
5. Assessor Parcel Number:
6. Project Sponsor:
7. General Plan Designation
Springfield Montessori School
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94588
Erica Fraser, Senior Planner, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833-6610
West of Brannigan Street and southwest of Kohnen Way
985-0052-022 and 985-0052-023
Raj an Lal
VSS Holdings LLC
746 Miner Road
Orinda, CA 94563
Public/Semi-Public
8. Zoning: PD (Planned Development) District
9. Specific Plan Designation: Public/Semi-Public
10. Other Public Agency Required Approvals:
Lot Merger (City of Dublin)
Site Development Review (City of Dublin)
Conditional Use Permit (City of Dublin)
Development Agreement (City of Dublin)
Grading and Building permits (City of Dublin)
Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 7
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Project Location and Context
Exhibit 1 depicts the location of the Project area in context of the neighboring planning areas.
The Project site is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area. This
Specific Plan/General Plan was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the purpose of
directing long-term land use, circulation, infrastructure and environmental protection for 3,328
acres of land located east of the central portion of Dublin and north of the I-580 freeway. At full
build-out, the Eastern Dublin planning area would allow a range of residential, commercial
office, employment and open space uses.
The Project area is also part of Dublin Ranch, the largest landholding within the Eastern Dublin
Specif c Plan area. Dublin Ranch contains approximately 1,310 acres of land and is being
planned to accommodate approximately 5,760 residential dwellings and approximately 2.5
million square feet of office and retail floor space. Dublin Ranch is also being planned to contain
a range of schools, parks and other public areas.
The project site is comprised of a 2.57 acre portion of area F located in Dublin Ranch. The
Project site is located within the larger East Dublin area, located west of the Brannigan Street and
southwest of Kohnen Way. The Project site is currently vacant and unimproved: There are no
structures located within the boundaries of the Project site. The site is primarily covered with.
non-native grassland. The topography consists of a slight grade change from east to west. The
majority of the site is fairy level with a reduction in grade along the western side of the property.
Construction of Medium Density.Residential homes are currently under construction along the
eastern side of the Project site, to the west are existing Medium Density Residential homes, to the
north is Eleanor Murray Fallon Middle School and to the south is a vacant PD Public and Semi-
Public lot of approximately three acres slated for a mosque.
Project Description
The proposed Project includes a Stage 2 PD-Development Plan to establish development
regulations for the proposed Springfield Montessori School. The proposed facility would
provide care for 180 children ranging from two to six years of age with no more than 15
employees at a time. The building measures approximately 16,002 square feet in size. On-site
improvements include a playground, parking lot, lighting, water quality basins and landscape
areas. Although the name of the facility states that it is a school, because this facility provides
care for children, it functions like a daycare facility rather than a private school that would
provide schooling for older children.
Although a Stage 2 PD-Development Plan was. adopted for Area F North surrounding the Project
site, the Project site was not incorporated within this document and therefore development
standards and guidelines were not devised and adopted.
City of Dublin Page 8
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
The Applicants have proposed a Stage 2 Planned Development, Site Development Review and
Conditional Use Permit to construct a 16;002 square foot Montessori School. The project will be
constructed on a vacant 2.57 acre parcel located in Area F of Dublin Ranch. The project includes
one daycare building, parking lot, playground, landscaping and related improvements. The
entrance to the parking area will be located on Brannigan Street. The facility will provide
services for up to 180 children aged 2-6 years. The daycare will have no more than 15 employees
on site at one time.
The Project is consistent with the Public/Semi-Public land use designation of the General Plan
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This addendum further identifies the use of a portion of the
6.3 acre site for a daycare.
.~
All of the mitigation measures in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to this property
including the Project. For the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the development of
this property, the City adopted a Statement of Ovemding Considerations (Resolution 53-93) as
part of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. This Project also lies within Dublin Ranch Area F. In 2000,
the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and in 2004, the City adopted a CEQA
Addendum which reviewed development of the property.
Minor grading activities would occur on the Project site to accommodate the planned use. Dublin
San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) will provide water and wastewater service for the Project.
These seances are planned in accordance.with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan
<; (and/or ,subsequentrevisions). Sewer service for the Project site will. xequire coruiection to
DSRSD's existing sewer system. '
Other Entitlements
The applicant has also requested approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) application for
approval of the site layout and building architecture, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
establish the land use. A Development Agreement and lot merger are also required.
City of Dublin Page 9
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
r
Exhibit 1. Site Location
~.--
~q
y t l~
~.~. r_ 1
~:~x .; ..
~i~~
it ~` -
City of Dublin Page 10
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
- Hazards and Hydrology/Water - Land Use/ Planning
Hazardous Materials uality
- Mineral Resources - Noise Population~'Housing
- Public Services Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Findings
S stems _ of Significance
]Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration 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 significant effect on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but
must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
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, Negative Declaration and Mitigated
Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project, or (c) a Statement of Ovemding Considerations has been adopted by the
Dublin City Council. An Addendum has been prepared to the previous CEQA reviews.
City of Dublin . Page 11
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Signature: Date:
Printed Name: For:
City of Dublin Page 12
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each
potential impact at the end of the checklist). A full discussion of each item can be found
following the checklist.
I. Aesthetics - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic
vista? (Source: 2,9,14,15)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 9,14,15)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (Source: 9,14,15)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Source:
9,14,15)
II. Agricultural Iesources -Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
showing on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to anon-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 anon-agricultural use? (Source:
2)
III. Air Quality -Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2,9,
15)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
Impact
X
X
X
. X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School
PA 08-038
Page 13
January 2009
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2, 14,15)
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:2,14,15)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (Source:2,14,15)
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source:
2,14,15)
N. Biological Resources -Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, .
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by .
the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15}
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies or regulations or by the
.California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source:
2,3,10,11,12,13,14,15)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
Less Than
Potentially Less than
Significant Significant Significant No
With Impact
Impact Miti ation Fact
X
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, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (Source: 2, 3, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
1.. .L 11. .L 1:._
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School
PA 08-038
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 14
January 2009
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 17)
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: 2)
V. Cultural Resources -Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2, 4,15)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2, 4,15)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ~ .
paleontological resource or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2, 4,15)
d) Disturb any human remains; including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery?
{Source: 2, 4,15)
VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project • .~ ~ .
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault (Source: 5)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (5)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (5)
iv) Landslides? (5)
b) Result in substantial~soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? (5)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
twistable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 5)
City of Dublin
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School
PA 08-038
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti anon
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
~
X i
~
~~
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 15
January 2009
.~;
Potentially Less Than
Si ficant
Less than
No
Significant With Significant ~ act
P
Impact Miti ation Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or X
property? (Source: 5)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers X
are not available for the disposal of waste?
(Source: 5)
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Would _
the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous X
materials? (Source: 6)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or . __
~~
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions .
involving the release of hazardous into the ~ X
environment? (Source: 6)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ~
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or ~ X
proposed school? (Source: 6)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a significant X
hazard to the public or the environment?
(Source: 6)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the X
project area? (Source: 6)
f) For a prof ect within the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the X
project area? (Source: 6)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation X
plan? (Source: 2)
City of Dublin Page 16
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Potentially Less Than
Significant
Less than
Significant
With Significant
act
Im act
P Miti anon act
~
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 X
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(Source: 2)
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 7,15)
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... X
support existing land uses or planned uses ~ -
for which pernuts have been granted?- ~ '
!
(Source: 2, 7; 15)
S
b
i
ll ___~
c)
u
stant
a
y alter th.e existing-drainage
pattern of the site or area, includuig through ~
the aeration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in X
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 7, 15)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage.
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount X
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 7)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of X
polluted runoff? (Source: 2, 7,15)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality? (Source: 2,15)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X
delineation map? (Source: 7) .
City of Dublin Page 17
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School . January 2009
PA 08-038
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2, 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
(Source: 7)
IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 9)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
.. or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Source: 2) '
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (1, 2)
X. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
. the, region and the residents of the state?
(Source: 2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 2)
XL Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in
the general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
(Source: 2, 9)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2, 5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Si ficant
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
I act
X
X
X
X
i
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
C~QA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School
PA 08-038
Page 18
January 2009
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing levels without the project? (Source:
2, 9)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (Source: 9)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan .or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Source: 9)
f) For a project within the vicinity Qf a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the.project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 9)
XII. Population and Housing -Would the project
a) Induce substantial population. growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 2)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing
elsewhere? (Source: 2)
XIII. Public Services -Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service rations, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services? (Sources: 2, 10, 15, 16)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Potentially
Significant
Im act
p Less Than
Si scant
~
With
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Im act
p
No
Impact
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin Page 19
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Parks
Other public facilities
XIV. Recreation -Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated
(Source: 2)
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? (Source: 2)
XV. Transportation and Traffic -Would the
project.•
a) Cause an increase in traff c 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: 8,15,16)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (Source:
8,15,16)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results iri
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:
8,17)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(Source: 8,17)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(Source: 8,17)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
Miti ation
Less than
Significant
Impact
Impact
X
X
" X
X
I
~~
X
X
X
- X
X
City of Dublin
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School
PA 08-038
Page 20
"`, January 2009
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (such as bus turnouts and
bicycle facilities)? (Source: 8,15)
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems- Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (Source: 2)
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:
2,16)
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, 7)
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,
16)
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, 16)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
(Source: 2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
(Source: 2)
City of Dublin
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School
PA 08-038
Potentially Less Than
Less than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact
Impact Impact
Miti ation
X
X
X
X ~
I
~ X
I
X
X
X
Page 21
January 2009
XVI. Mandatory Findings of Significance -
Would the project:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) 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 o.f other current proj ects 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 Less Than
Si cant
Less than
No
Significant ~ Significant Impact
Impact Miti ation Impact
X
.~
--
- X
-1
X,-
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan (1993)
2. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan EIR (1993)
3. Special-Status Species Survey, Pao Yeh Lin Property, H.T. Harvey Associates (October
1999)
4, Cultural Resource Survey, Dublin Ranch, Holman & Associates (June, 1999)
5 Geotechnical Investigation of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants (November,
1997)
6 Phase One and Two Hazardous Materials Survey of Lin Property, Berlogar Geotechnical
Consultants (November 1997)
7. Drainage and Hydrology Study for Dublin Ranch, MacKay & Somps (November 2003)
8. Project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TJKM Associates (October1999)
9. Site Visit
10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Fill Permit (dated May 23, 2003)
11. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Opinion (dated July 1, 2002)
12. .Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Certification Order (dated Apri122,
2003)
City of Dublin Page 22
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038 '
13. California Department of Fish & Game 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
(dated June 5, 2003)
14 Individual Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA F (2000)
15. Individual Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch PA Areas B, F and E
(2004)
16. Letter from TTKM Regarding Estimated Trip Generation dated December 15, 2003
17. Project Plans
18. Discussion with City of Dublin staff
City of Dublin Page 23
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
to
Earlier Analyses
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Reference Section 15063 (c)(3)(d).
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmeltal information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report. (SCH 91103064).
This document is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EILZ." Copies of
this document are available for public review at the City of Dublin Plaruiing Department,
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration was subsequently approved for Planning Area F of
Dublin Ranch in 2000 (SCH # 1999112040, PA #98-068, adopted by Dublin City
Council Resolution No. 34-00 on February 15, 2000. In 2004 an Initial Study wa.s
prepared for Areas B, F and E. Both documents were also used in the preparation of this
Initial Study and are incorporated herein by reference.
Mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dub11II EIR, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration approved in 2000 for Planning Area F continue to apply to the proposed
Project.
As part of the certificatioll of the EIR and approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and General Plan Amendment, the Dublin City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative traffic, extension of
certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air
quality, noise and visual, and other impacts identified in Resolution 53-93, dated May 10,
1993 and incorporated herein by reference.
Copies of these previous environmental documents are available for review at the Dublin
Planning Department during normal business hours.
The Project is consistent with the Public/Semi Public land use designation of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Project site has been the subject of prior
CEQA reviews, initially through the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, a program-level review of
the potential urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Numerous mitigation measures were
adopted with the Eastern Dublin general plan and specific plan approvals on May 10,
1993. All of the mitigation measures continue to apply, as appropriate, to implementing
projects, including this Project. For the significant and unavoidable impacts, the City
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (See Resolution 53-93). Pursuant to
the recent Communities for a Better Environment case, approval of the Project would
City of Dublin Page 24
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
require that the City reweigh the identified unavoidable impacts and adopt a new
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Project site was later reviewed in connection with approval of two separate land use
revisions and adoption of a PD rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plans. The Dublin
Ranch Area F portion of the Project was reviewed in a subsequent Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). The MND tiered from the Eastern Dublin EIlt, and identified
additional potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures. The Initial Study
prepared in 2004 for Areas B, E and F was tiered from the aforementioned EIR and
MND. All of the adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project.
The following discussions track the environmental checklist above. Where possible, the
discussion describes the prior relevant analyses and the prior adopted mitigation
measures. The discussions are summary only; the prior E1R, MND and IS should be
consulted for full discussion of related impacts and mitigations. The discussions also
examine whether the proposed Springfield Montessori School will have any new or more
severe significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR, MND or
ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Because the Project does not propose
new or different development, i.e., the type and extent of land use is similar to those
assumed in the previous reviews, most impacts are unchanged for the Project. The Project
also includes a less intensive land use than initially anticipated and studied, therefore; .
some impacts may be reduced compared to the existing approvals.
-\
City of Dublin Page 25
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038 '
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
NI: No Impact
The following information is provided for the environmental checklist. The discussions are
summary only; the proper Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration or
Addendum should be consulted for a full discussion of all the impacts and mitigation measures.
The discussion also examines whether the Project would require preparation of a subsequent
Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Because the Project does not propose a use beyond what
was studied in the 2004 CEQA Addendum, most impacts are unchanged for the Project.
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting ~ '
The Project site is vacant and corisists of non-native grasses and a mild change in grade. The
Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site as "valley grasslands," which are located on the
areas near I-580 in the south and southwest portion of Eastern Dublin. Where agricultural
activity, including grazing, has historically taken place (such as within the Project area), the
visual image of lands is formed by patterns of the soil that have been furrowed.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts to visual resources and aesthetics
applicable to this Project:
• IM 3.88, C, and D: Alteration of the ruraUopen space visual character of the area
whereby new development allowed under the Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment
would change the visual open space area of the Project area, including hillsides.
• IM 3.8/F: alteration of the visual character of the flatlands, whereby future urban
development on the flatland portion of the Project site would alter views of valley grasses and
agricultural fields.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of Mitigation Measures that are applicable to this
project to assist in reducing aesthetic impacts to aless-than-significant level, including
Mitigation Measures 3.8/1.0 through 3.8/8.1.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F identified supplemental Mitigation
Measure 1 that required pole mounted streetlights to be equipped with cut-off lenses or directed
downward to minimize spill over of lights.
City of Dublin Page 26
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
~~::.
Protect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. The vacant 2.57 acre Project site
consists of non-native grasses and a mild grade change. The Project site is bound by a
middle school to the north, medium density residential homes to the east and west and a
vacant three acre parcel to the south designated for Public/Semi-Public uses. The proposed
development will consist of a one story building with associated site improvements such as
a playground, parking lot and landscape area. Once constructed, the proposed Project will
be consistent with the developed surroundings.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highway? NI. The project
site is not located adjacent to a state designated scenic highway. No other scenic resources
currently exist on the site as the site is vacant with non-native grassland.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the duality of the site? LS. As previously
stated the once the Project site is developed it will be more attractive and consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood (which is currently developed or under construction) than its
current status. Additionally, this impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
d) Create light or glare? LS. As addressed in the 2000 MND, construction of the proposed
project would increase the amount of light and glare-due to new street lighting and building
security lighting. In some instances, the additional lighting could result in negative aesthetic
impacts through the "spill over" of unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks ~ and
other areas that are not intended to be lighted.
The Project includes decorative light fixtures approved for the Dublin Ranch community.
Prior to issuance of building pernuts, as required by the Project Conditions of Approval, a
photometric study will be required to .be prepared which shall show that the Project will
meet the requirements of Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.76.070 A. 13 which states that
parking areas shall have lighting capable of providing adequate illumination for security
and safety. As conditioned, the minimum requirement is 1 foot candle, maintained across
the surface of the parking area. As required by Mitigation Measure 1 in the 2000 Mitigated
Negative Declaration, any illumination, including security lighting, shall be directed away
from adjoining properties and public rights-of--way.
Overall, no additional impacts to visual resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to
occur as a result of this Project.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental S ettin~
According to information contained in the Phase One Hazardous Materials study prepared by
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants for the site, the property has been used exclusively for
farming and cattle grazing for the past 40 years. Farming and cattle operations have since ceased
on the site and the site has been fallow for several years.
City of Dublin ~ Page 27
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
..j ,-
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the site is characterized by soils of locally important farmland,
although not of prime or unique farmland.
Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Figure 3.1-C), the Project site is not
encumbered with a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement contract.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to agricultural resources:
• IM 3.1/C: Discontinuation of agricultural uses, which was aless-than-significant impact
due to the high percentage of Williamson Act contracts that were either non-renewed or
cancelled.
• IM 3.1/D: Loss of farmlands of local importance, which was identified as less-than-
significant since no prime agricultural soils were identified on the Project site.
No mitigation measures were contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, since no potentially
significant impacts were identified.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new
or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIIZ related to
agricultural resources. -
Pro~ecL t Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conj~ict :with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a
non-agricultural use? LS. Although the site has historically been used for agricultural crop
production, the underlying soil is not considered primary agricultural soil and no
Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreemrent exists on the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR found that discontinuance of agricultural operations is an
insignificant impact based on the large number of non-renewal notices being filed on
Williamson Act Agreements within the Eastern Dublin area (Impact 3.1/C). Similarly, loss
of farmland of local importance, such as the project site, were considered aless-than-
sign~cant impact due to the fact that on-site soils are not prime agricultural soils (Impact
3.1/D).
Overall, no additional impacts to agricultural resources not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
Dublin is located in th.e Tri-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal standards for
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are meta Standards for other airborne pollutants,
including. ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter (PM-10) are not met in at
least a portion of the Basin. -
City of Dublin Page 28
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to air quality:
• IM 3.11/A: Dust deposition soiling nuisance from construction activities, which was
identified as a potentially significant cumulative impact.
• IM 3.118: Air emission from construction equipment, which was identified as a
potentially significant impact.
• IM 3.11/C: Air quality impacts related to mobile emissions of reactive organic gasses and
nitrogen monoxide, which was identified as a potentially cumulative significant impact.
• IM 3.11/D: Mobile source emission of carbon monoxide, which was identified as a less-
than-significant impact.
• IM 3.11/E: Stationary source emissions from HVAC and other sources, which was a
potentially significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 through 13.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to assist in
reducing long= and short-term air quality impacts. Impacts related to emission from construction
vehicles, mobile source emission of reactive organic gasses and nitrogen dioxide and stationary.
source emissions were identified as significant and unavoidable and a Statement.of Overriding
Considerations were adopted by the City of Dublin for these impacts. ~ .. . ~:
. ~ The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify riew
~~ or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to .air
quality. .
Project Impacts acid Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? LS. The
proposed project would not conflict with the local Clean Air Plan adopted by the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District, since development of the site with Public/Semi-Public
land uses was anticipated in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Short-term construction impacts
related to implementation of the project, including grading and excavation, could result in
exceedances of air quality standards established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (Eastern Dublin EIR, Impacts 3.11/A and B). Adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.11/1.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.11/2.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce
short-term air quality impacts to aless-than-significant level. These measures minimize the
creation of fugitive dust during grading and construction activities and also mandate that
construction equipment be kept in proper running order. The Eastern Dublin EIR concludes
that potential air quality impacts related to construction equipment could not be mitigated
to aless-than-significant impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted
for this impact. If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of Overriding
Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 29
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Similarly, potential air quality impacts related to mobile source emissions of Reactive
Organic Gasses and Nitrogen Oxide, both precursor indicators of smog, and stationary
source emissions were found to exceed regional air quality standards even with mitigation
measures, and were included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Eastern
Dublin EIR Impacts 3.11/C and E). If this project were to be approved, a new Statement of
Ovemding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City of Dublin. .
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. The Eastern
Dublin EIR identifies Mobile Source Emissions and Stationary Source Emissions as
significant irreversible impacts. Generally such impacts are based on vehicular emission
from future traffic within the sub-region as well as stationary sources. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted for long-term impacts. If this project were to be
approved, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would need to be adopted by the City
of Dublin.
Since the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and adoption of the Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration and CEQA Addendum, the issue of the contribution of
.greenhouse gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern in this
State as evidence by the passage of AB 3.2 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation or
case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gases ,arid climate change under CEQA.
The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was
not analyzed in prior CEQA documentation. Since the Eastern Dublin Environmental
Impact Report 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 Eastern Dublin EIR was certified. The issue of
climate change and greenhouse gases was widely known prior to 1993. 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. In 2004, the City Council approved a land use
change from High School to Public/Semi-Public. An Addendum to the EIR was prepared
for the project at that time. The Addendum determined that there would be no additional
impacts, with respect to air quality, because the change in land uses was a less intensive use
of the site. 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. The proposed daycare is an allowed use
under the current General Plan and Specific Plan land use designation.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? LS. The proposed project consists of the establishment of a Montessori School
which would provide care for and teach children between the ages of 2-6 years of age. The
City of Dublin Page 30
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
children attending the Montessori School could be considered sensitive receptors.
However, since air quality impacts were included in the Statement of Overriding
considerations, this impact is considered less than significant and no further analysis is
required.
Overall, no additional impacts to air quality not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as
a result of this Project.
. 4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project site is dominated by non-native grassland and
dryland-farmed (grain crops) habitats. Fields are typically cropped ~ at various seasonal and
annual rotations followed by fallow years at a rate of one in every five years. Crops are not
irrigated. Biological analyses and wetland delineations were conducted for the Eastern Dublin
EIR as well as the Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration, describing both
habitat and species present in project area, and information on wetland resources. As noted
earlier, Dublin Ranch Areas B, F and E including the Project site have been mass graded
pursuant•to.USACE and DIi~G permits.
• ~ .Plants ~ . ~ .~
.Based on thz history of cultivation of the Project Area; most of the 23 special-status plant species
. identified as potentially occurring in Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, F and E are not expected
to• be present. Previous agricultural activities, including livestock grazing and crop production
have degraded potential habitat for these species, and existing predominant plant species include
invasive forbs and glasses indicative of disturbed habitats. Although neither the Congdon's
tarplant (Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii) nor San Joaquin spearscale (.Atriplex joaquiniana) has
been observed in the Project Area, Congdon's tarplant has been observed on Area H to the south,
and San Joaquin spearscale has been observed on a nearby parcel to the southeast.
Wildlife
The Eastern Dublin EIR, the Negative Declaration and the Mitigated Negative Declaration
background information on the potential for special-status and sensitive animal species that could
potentially occur on the Project site. With the permitted grading on the Project site and related
offsite mitigation and species relocation associated with Areas B, F and E, many of the species
are no longer expected to occur on the Project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of potentially significant impacts to biological
resources, including IM 3.7/A (direct habitat loss), IM 3.78 (indirect impacts of vegetation
removal), IM 3.7/C (loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat), IM 3.7/D (impacts to
San Joaquin kit fox), IM 3.78 (impacts to bald eagle, peregrine falcon and Alameda whipsnake),
IM 3.7/F (impacts to red-legged frog), IM 3.7/G (California tiger salamander), IM 3.7/H (impacts
to western pond turtle), IM 3.7/I (impacts tri-colored blackbirds), IM 3.7/J (destruction of Golden
eagle nesting sites, IM 3.7/K (elimination of Golden eagle foraging sites), IM3.7/L (Golden eagle
and other raptor electrocution), IM 3.7/M impacts to burrowing owl), IM 3.7/ N (impacts to
American badger), IM 3.7/O (impacts to prairie falcon, northern harrier and black-shouldered
City of Dublin Page 31
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
kite), IM 3.7/P (impacts to sharp-shinned hawk and Cooper's hawk), IM 3.7 Q (impacts to short-
eared owl), IM 3.7/R impacts to California homed lizard), IM 3.7/S (impacts to special-status
invertebrates).
A number of mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce all of the
above impacts to less-than-significant levels, except for the loss of botanically sensitive habitat.
These are Mitigation Measures 3/7/1.0 to 28.0. These mitigation measures continue to apply to
this project.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Area F contained Supplemental
Mitigation Measure 2(i) and 2(iv) to protect special-status species which continues to apply to
the proposed Project. This mitigation measure requires the developer to retain a qualified
biologist to survey the site for special status plant species and the Burrowing Owl and American
Badger prior to issuance of a grading permit.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS.
Development of the Project. area would have impacts on the
California~red-legged frog and California tiger salamander that are less than significant with
mitigation incorporation. Tlus development could potentially have impacts on the
Congdon's tarplant, San Joaquin spearscale, Burrowing Owl, White-tailed Fite (and other
tree-nesting raptors), and American badger. Mitigation rr~easures ;n the Eastern Dublin EIR.
.• ~,~ , .: and 2000: Mitigated Negative Declaration have reduced impacts .associated with these
. , ~- ~ 'species to a Less than significant level. Site clearing .and grading could result in direct loss of
individuals of Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale if these species are present on
the site. ' .~
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS.
As shown on the map included in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration, no wetlands
were found on the Project site during a survey of the Planning Area.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. There are no bodies of water
located on the Project site. The site is surrounded by developed parcels and therefore no
significant wildlife movement occurs on or across the Project site.
e, ~ Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No trees are
present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation
ordinances or policies. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat
Conservation Plans.
Overall, no additional impacts to biological resources not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
City of Dublin Page 32
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
C
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin area was surveyed in 1988 as part of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
associated EIR. Several potentially significant archeological resources were identified in the
project area and the Eastern Dublin EIR mandated additional project-level archeological surveys.
In May, 1999, Holman and Associates resurveyed Planning Area F by means of a mechanical
backhoe. Several battered petrified wood fragments were discovered; however, later laboratory
investigation indicated the fragments likely resulted from natural tumbling or damage from farm
equipment. In summary, no potentially significant prehistoric archeological materials or
indicators were found on the property during the study.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to cultural resources:
• IM 3.9/A: Disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources, which was
identified as a potentially significant impact.
IM 3.98: Disruption or destruction of unidentified pre-historic resources, which. was
identified as a potentially significant impact.. ~ .
. ~ ~ . ~ •. • .~ IlVI 3.9/C: Disruption or destruction of identified historic resources, wrscli was° identified
~as a potentially significant unpact.,
IM 3,9/D:: Disruption or destruction of •unidentified historic resources, which was
identified as a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 to 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to historic and pre-historic
resources to ales-than-significant level.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration identified Supplemental Mitigation Measure 4,
intended to protect unrecorded cultural resources. All applicable mitigation measures in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration will continue to apply to the
Project.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project site is
vacant and no historic resources have been identified on the site. Therefore, the possibility
of encountering historic resources is considered remote and no impact is expected.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources? LS. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and- 6.0, contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
were adopted to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level and will be implemented
with Project development. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration identified a remote
but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading,
trenching and excavation may uncover significant paleontological resources. Mitigation
Measure 4 was included to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin ~ ~ Page 33
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
d) Disturb any human resources? LS. A remote possibility exists that human resources could
be uncovered on the Site during construction activities. Mitigation Measures 3.9 5.0 and 6.0
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce such impacts to a level of less-
than-significance.
Overall, no additional impacts to cultural
Dublin EIlZ, the 2000 Mitigated Negativ
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
6. Geology and Soils
resources not previously identified in the Eastern
e Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical reports cited in the 2000 Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The reports are on file in the City of Dublin Planning Department.
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and landform,
drainage and erosion and potential impacts to localized soil types.
Seisrnic '~
The Project Area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically active
regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby significant
faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault, and San Andreas Fault..
The likelihood of a major seismic event on one or more of these .faults wi.tlun th~~ near future is
believed to b.e high. The project site is not~part of a Special Studies Zone for faults as identified
by the State of California.
The Mocho Fault was mapped by the California Division of Mines and Geology in 1974 and was
later evaluated as part of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As part of this evaluation it
was concluded that the existence of the Mocho Fault was questionable and geomorphic features
could be caused by differential erosion.
A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that may be
seisimically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary rocks south of
Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge-blind thrust, Mount Diablo
Domain." Further investigation of this inferred fault by Berlogar Geologic Consultants has
concluded that the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low on the Project Site.
Site Soils
Site soils are characterized as colluvium, which is highly expansive and consists of dark gray,
very stiff to hard silty clay.
Landform and Topography
The Project Site is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-Amador
Valley. Existing elevations on the site range from approximately 450 to 500 feet above sea level.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to soil and geological
resources as applicable to this Project:
City of Dublin Page 34
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
• IM 3.6/A: Ground fault rupture, which was identified as aless-than-significant impact.
• IM 3.68: Primary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was
identified as a potentially significant impact.
• IM 3.6/C: Secondary impacts of groundshaking due to earthquake activity, which was
identified as a potentially significant impact.
• IM 3.6/D: Substantial alteration to site landfornis, which was identified as a potentially
significant impact:
• IM :?.6./F: Impacts to groundwater resources, which would be a potentially significant
impact.
• IM 3.6/G: Irripacts to groundwater resources due to imgation, which would be a
potentially significant impact.
• IM 3.6/H: Shrink and swell impacts related to expansive soils, which would be a
potentially significant impact.
~. • . IM 3•:6/I~:~ c~ L: Construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation, which waul'd.be '~
~, potentially significant impacts. ~ . ~ .
Mitigation measures contained in the. Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce the above ~:
impacts to less-than-significant levels except IM 3.68 regarding groundshaking, which ~ was
significant and unavoidable.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new ,
or supplemental impacts or-mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to geology
and soils.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury
or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides?
LS. The Project site is subject to ground shaking caused by a number of regional faults
identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events which are probable in the Bay
Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other improvements constructed in the
Project Area would be subject to damage caused by ground shaking.
Since the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Safety Zone and
the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal. Mitigation Measures 3.6/1.0
through 8.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to ensure that new
structures would comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that ground
shaking impacts would be reduced to a level ofless-than- significant.
City of Dublin ~ Page 35
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
C
Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-26.0 were adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin Plan EIR to
reduce potential impacts to slopes to a level of less-than-significant. These mitigation
measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical reports, minimizing
grading on steep slopes and adherence to Uniform Building Code and other City
requirements for grading.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. The Eastern Dublin
EIR notes that an impact of constructing all of the land uses identified in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan/General Plan would be an increase of erosion and sedimentation caused by
grading activities. Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0,
standard conditions of approval require the Project to prepare and implement interim
erosion plans as part of grading permits. With adherence to these mitigation measures,
potential erosion impacts will be reduced to ales-than-significant level.
c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive• or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Portions of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan, including the Project Site, are subject to soil types with high shrink-swell potential.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 were adopted to reduce potential shrink-swell
impacts to a level of less-than-significance by requiring appropriate structural foundations
and other techniques to overcome shrink-swell effects. No additional mitigation measures
are required.
e) 1lave soils incapable of sz.cpporting or1-site septic tanks if sewers are not available.? N[. As
noted on the Project plans, the site will be connected to a sanitary sewer provided by Dublin
San Ramon Services District. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic
tanks. .
t~verall, no additional impacts to geology and soils not previously identified in the Easternn
Dublin EIIZ, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The site has been partially graded; the remaining area is primarily open grasslands and currently
contains no structures. Phase I and Phase II hazardous materials studies were completed for the
site by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in 1996 and 1997 with the finding that no hazardous
materials has been identified on the site. The site has not been listed as containing a hazardous
site, hazardous material generator or transporter or having known underground storage tanks.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified IM 3.4/E (exposure to wildfire hazards) as a potentially
significant impact, which could be reduced to aless-than-significant level through adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 through 10.0.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new
~ or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to hazards
or hazardous materials.
City of Dublin Page 36
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
The Project Site is bound by residential uses to the east and west, a middle school to the north
and a three acre vacant parcel to the south. In addition, the Project site is located in close
proximity to two fire stations.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or
emission of hazardous materials? LS. The proposed Montessori School would include a
building and playground. Materials associated with this use would include normal and
customary materials such as lawn chemicals, cleaning solvents and similar materials which
are not significant.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. A previously completed Phase II
hazardous materials analysis indicates that the site is free of hazardous materials. No
impacts are therefore anticipated.
e, f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip?
LS. The Project Site is located northwesterly of the Livermore Municipal Airport. The City
of Dublin referred the Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment applications for Planning
Areas F-H to the Alameda County Airport. Land Use Cormnission (ALUC). At the ALUC
meeting on April 14, 1999, the ~~ommission noted that Planning Areas F, G & H all lay:
outside of the referral area for Livermore Tvlunicipal Airport and the ALi iC has no
jurisdiction over land uses within the Project Site.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Adequate °mergency access has been .
provided via the proposed street system to and from the site to the satisfaction of the
Alameda County Fire Department. Due to the provision of adequate access, there wotild•be
no impact .wi.th regard to emergency evacuation plans.
li) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. The Project Site is
currently. a vacant field with some grasses. Although the site is vacant, under developments
have been constructed or are currently under construction adjacent to the Project Site which
has reduced the amount of grasslands in the area. Development of the Project Site will
include new waterlines, fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access for firefighting
purposes.
Overall, no additional impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials not previously
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004
CEQA Addendum are expected to occur as a result of this Project.
City of Dublin Page 37
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
The Project site ranges in elevation from 450 feet to 500 feet.-The Flood Insurance Rate Map
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency the Project Site is determined to be
outside a special flood hazard area (FEMA Map Number 06001C0328G).
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to hydrology and water
quality as applicable to this Project:
• IM 3.5/Y: Potential flooding was identified as aless-than-significant impact.
• IM 3.5/Z: Reduced groundwater recharge, which was identified as a potentially
significant impact.
• IM 3.5/AA: Non-point sources of pollution, which was identified as a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 to 55.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce the
above impacts to ales-than-significant level.
The 2000 1Vlitiga.ted Negative Declaration. included additional Mitigation Measure 5 which
requires the preparation of a Stornwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Mitigation .
Measure 6 which requires a drainage and hydrology study to be submitted prior to the issuance of :. ,
grading permits 'for the site. These mitigation measures will continue to apply to the proposed
Project.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. Construction of
improvements anticipated within the Project Area plan would necessitate grading and over
covering of the soil in order to construct the building pad, utility connections and similar
features. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration included supplemental Mitigation
Measure 5 which requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plari be prepared to reduce
potential water quality impacts.
b) Substantially. deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS.
Although the Project Site is currently vacant it was anticipated to be converted to an urban
use in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This impact has been addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
(Impact 3.5) and Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0, so no further analysis is required.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR acknowledges that
implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would change existing natural drainage
patterns. Proposed changes would include grading and re-contouring much of the site.
Stormwater runoff would eventually flow to the Alameda County Flood Control District
and Water Conservation District G-3 facility immediately north of the I-580 freeway.
City of Dublin Page 38
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Compliance with Mitigation Measure 5 in the 2000 Mitigated. Negative Declaration will
reduce erosion on the Site from both construction and post construction activities to a less
than significant level. The Project will be required to comply with this mitigation measure.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of the Montessori School building
and other improvements would change drainage patterns on the Project Site. Drainage
would be routed through newly constructed underground pipes, culverts and similar
facilities constructed to connect with existing and planned drainage improvements within
the Eastern Dublin area.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. Construction of on-site L~nprovements, as well
as new improvements upstream of the Project Site, is anticipated to lead to greater
quantities of storm water runoff. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration requires the
applicants to prepare a SWPPP to reduce impacts on the site. Additionally, Mitigation
Measure 6 requires the developer to submit a drainage and hydrology study to the Public
Works Department prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?.LS. Refer to the analysis under "a," above.
g) ~ Place housing within a 100-near flood hazard~area as mapped by a Flood Inszcrarzce Rate
• 1llap? NI. The proposed project does .not include a housing component nor is it Located
within a 100-year flood plan as mapped by FEMA.• There would therefore be no impact in
. regard to flooding hazards. ~ . ~ •
h, i) Place tivith~ra a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redireci flood
flow, including dam failures? NI. As noted in the response to "g," above, the Project Site is
not located within a flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Proposed drainage on and off the project site would transport stormwater runoff
into approved- City or regional drainage facilities for appropriate disposal, so there would be
no impact with .regard to anticipated drainage facilities.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? LS. The site is not located near a
major body of water that' could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflow is
considered low based on the Berlogar Geotechnical report (available for review at City
Hall). Mitigation Measures adopted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR will reduce potential
impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation impacts to
a level of less-than-significance. These mitigation measures include MM's 3.6/17-28.
Briefly, these mitigation measures require site-specific geotechnical analyses of each
proposed development, appropriate siting of new construction, use of appropriate
engineered fill with proper compaction and limiting the slope of grading.
Overall, no additional impacts related to hydrology and water quality not previously identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum
are expected to occw as a result of this Project.
City of Dublin Page 39
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The Project proposes to construct a Montessori School on the site which will serve children ages
2=6 years. Both the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan allow the
establishment of Public/Semi-Public uses on the site. The proposed daycare is considered to be a
Public/Semi-Public land use in the General Plan and Specific Plan.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to land use as applicable to
this Project:
• IM 3.1/A: Substantial alteration to existing land use, which was identified as a less-than-
significant impact.
• IM 3.18: On-si.te land use impacts, which was identified as ales-than-significant
impact.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new
or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to land~use.
Project Tm acts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community? NL:The project site is surrounded by existing
development on three sides of the property. Development of the site has been anticipated
. ~ since the adoption of the .Eastern- Dublin Specific Plan. Development of the site with a
Public/Semi-Public land use has been anticipated since the adoption of the Stage 1:P.lanned
Development Rezone in 2004. .
b) Conflict. with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The proposed Project
site has a land use designation of Public/Semi-Public. T'he land use designation permits
community serving facilities including daycare facilities. The proposed Project is
compatible with the type of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,
General Plan and Stage 1 Development Plan.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No
such plan has been adopted within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan area.
There would therefore be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan for the Project Area.
Overall, no additional impacts related to land use and planning not previously identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The Project area contains no known mineral resources.
City of Dublin Page 40
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the
site, so no impacts would occur. .
Overall, no additional impacts to mineral resources not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
11. Noise
Environmental Setting
Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the Project Site include noise generated by vehicles on
Brannigan Street.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to noise as applicable 'to
this Project:
IM 3.10/E: Exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise, which
would be a potentially significant impact.
.. •. Ilvl 3.10/F: Noise conflicts due to ,adjacency of diverse land uses penuitted by Specific
.. Plan policies, which would be a~potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.0, 4.0; 5:0, and 6.0 in the. Eastern Dublin EIR were adopted to
reduce noise impacts to aless-than-significant level, primarily through project specific acoustical
analysis to reduce indoor residential noise exposure to 45dB.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new
or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to noise.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, d) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Mitigation Measures
3.10/4.0 and 5.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR require individual project builders to
prepare construction noise management plans to minimize noise as well as adhere to
construction hour limitations to reduce construction noise impacts to the adjacent
residential dwellings to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project includes the construction of one building and an outdoor playground
for use by the daycare. The daycare will operate five days a week. Once constructed, noise
generated on the site will be increased due to an increase in the number of trips to the site
over what currently exists. An increase in trips, and as a result, vehicular noise, was
anticipated in the previous CEQA documents. Due to the nature of this facility, which
offers a morning session, full session and extended care, vehicle trips to the site will be
spaced out throughout the morning and afternoon. By staggering start and end times, the
amount of noise generated by these trips will not be concentrated at one time. Additionally,
City of Dublin Page 41
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
the facility will open at 7 am and will close at 6 pm. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases as an unavoidable and
unmitigatable impact. A Statement of Ovemding Considerations was adopted for this
impact.
A new playground for use by students of the facility will be constructed behind the new
building. This playground area will be located a minimum of 100 feet from the closest
residences located to the west of the Site. The playground will be located adjacent to a
parking lot for the Middle School to the North. The Applicant has indicated that no more
than 24 children are anticipated to be located in the playground at one time. Because this
playground area is located a minimum of 100 feet from the western property line and
because the total number of children in the playground will be limited to no more than 24
children at one time, noise impacts associated with this project are less than significant.
b,e-f) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI
No impacts are anticipated for groundborne vibration or noise, since no sources of vibration
currently exist within or adjacent to the Project Area, such as heavy industrial facilities or
railroads.
cj Substantial perrnanent increases in ambient noise levels? LS. See discussion under `a'
above. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified permanent noise impacts related to vehicular
. • • ..traffic increases as an unavoidable and unmitigai.able impact. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted for this impact.
Overall, no additional impacts .related to noise not previously identified in the Eastern Dublul• .
E1R, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration ar the 2004 ~CEQA Addendum are expected to
occur as a result of this Project.
12. Population and >FIousing
Environmental Setting
The State Department of Finance has determined that Dublin's population was 46,934 as of
3anuary 1, 2008.
The adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan anticipates 32,023 dwelling units in the
Eastern Dublin planning area at full buildout of all land uses within the Planning Area. The
Project is within the area planned for development.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS.
Approval of the proposed Project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and the land use identified in the Stage 1 Development Plan.
Additionally, the proposed Project is a daycare and therefore will not significantly increase
the population in the area.
City of Dublin Page 42
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The site is vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore neither displace ~
housing units or people.
Overall, no additional impacts related to population and housing not previously identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are handled by the Alameda County Fire
Department, which contracts with the City of Dublin for fire suppression, fire
prevention, education, inspection services and hazardous material control to the
community. .
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by Alameda County
Sheriff Department, which contracts to the City of Dublin for 24-hour security
patrols throughout the community in.. addition to ~ crime preventior_, crime
• suppression and traffic safety..
Schools. The Dublin Uzufied School District (DUSDI provides educational sewices
to the City of Dublin.
.. .. ~ ~.
• Maintenance. Maintenance .of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the
responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works Department.
• Solid Waste Service: Solid waste services are. provided by Amador Valley
Industries.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to public services as
applicable to this Project: IlVI 3.4/A (demand for increased police services), IM 3.48 (police
service accessibility), IM 3.4/C (demand for increased fire services), IM 3.4/E (exposure to
wildland fire), IM 3.4/O (increased solid waste production), and IM 3.4/P (impact on solid waste
disposal facilities). All of the above were identified as potentially significant impacts and
Mitigation Measures were adopted to reduce public service impacts to aless-than-significant
level.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new
or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to public
services.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Fire protection? LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase demand for fire
and emergency services on the Site: The Project will be required to reduce these impacts by
City of Dublin Page 43
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
installing fire sprinklers and new fire hydrants and by meeting the minimum fire flow
requirements in the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code.
The Project must also adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/7.0 and 3:4/9.0 contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. These mitigation measures relate to funding new fire facilities in
eastern Dublin, ensuring adequate water supplies and pressure for fire suppression, and
minimizing wildland fire hazards.
b) Police protection? LS. Incremental increases in the demand for police service could be
expected should the Project be constructed. Project developers would also be required to
adhere to Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0 and 3.4/5.0 set forth in Eastern Dublin EIR. These
measures require the inclusion of security provisions into individual development projects.
c) Schools? LS. Prior to establishment of the current land use re-designation the Eastern
Dublin EIR required project developers to adhere to lylitigation Measures 3.4/13.0-19.0 in
order to ensure that residential development would not exceed the capacity of existing or
future schools. Approval of the proposed Project would mean the establishment of a
Montessori School thereby reducing impact to existing and future daycare centers and
preschools. In addition,. because the proposed project does not involve the addition of
residential units an increase in attendance of schools located within the Dublin Unif ed
School District is not anticipated. .
` ~ •d) ~ •7Vlaintenarrce of public facilities,' including roads? - LS. Approval of the project and
construction of follow-up development projects would incrementally uicrease the Long-term
maintenance demand for roads and other public facilities. However, such additional
maintenance demands will be offset by additional City fees and property tax revenues
accruing to the City of Dublin.
e) Solid waste generation? LS. Approval of the project and construction would incrementally
increase generation of solid waste. The Eastern Dublin EIR requires adherence to
Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0. These measures require the preparation of a solid waste
management plan and assurances that adequate solid waste landfill capacity exists prior to
approval of individual development projects.
Overall, rio additional impacts related to public services not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, th.e 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as. a result of this Project.
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no parks or other recreational amenities.
Nearby community and regional parks include: Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre City park and two
community parks slated for development within the Dublin Ranch development The combined
area of the two community parks is 126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized
sports activities, individual sports as well as passive recreation.
City of Dubliri Page 44
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
• --
The East Bay Regional Parks District has developed a staging area on the west side of Tassajara ~
Road as part of a regional recreational trail system.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following impacts with regard to recreation facilities as
applicable to development of Eastern Dublin:
• IM 3.4/K: Increased demand for park facilities, which would be a potentially significant
impact.
• IM 3.42: Park facilities fiscal impact, which would be a potentially significant impact.
• IM 3.4/M: Impact on regional trail system, which would be a potentially significant
impact.
• IM 3.4/N: Impact on open space connectors, which would be a potentially- significant
impact.
Mitigation measures contained in the Eastem Dublin EIR were adopted to reduce all. of.the above
impacts to ales-than-significant level. -
The 20~?0 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify rievv
or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to
recreational facilities. - ~ -
Project Im,_pacts and Mitigation Measures ~ '
a) i~Yould the project- increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? ~ LS. The
proposed Project would provide a private playground with play equipment for children
attending the daycare. It is not anticipated .that Springfield. Montessori students will be
transported to nearby parks or other recreational facilities.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? NI. The proposed Project does not include any public recreational facilities. The
Project does include an enclosed playground intended to be used by the daycare.
Overall, no additional impacts related to recreation not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Traffic impacts related to the construction of a Public/Semi-Public Facility on this site were
reviewed in the 2004 CEQA Addendum (incorporated herein and available for review at City
Hall during normal business hours). As part of the CEQA Addendum, a trip analysis was
prepared by TJKM. TJKM determined that the number of trips which will be generated by a
daycare facility on this site would be less than what had previously been anticipated in the 2000
i
City of Dublin - Page 45
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Mitigated Negative Declaration which reviewed impacts related to the construction of a High
School on the Project Site.
Existing Transportation Network
The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and
collector roadways, including: Interstate 580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda
Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road.
Interstate 580, aneight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local cities such
as Livermore and Tracy to the east and Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to the
west.. Interchanges near the project site include Dougherty/Hopyard. Road, Hacienda
Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon RoadBl Charro Road.
Dougherty Road is a two-lane rural road with its northern section located in Contra Costa
County. Dougherty Road has four lanes between the Alameda County/Contra Costa
County border and Dublin Boulevard and six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and I-580.
South of I-580, it continues with six lanes as Hopyard F.oad in Pleasanton.
Dublin Boulevard is a major east=west arterial roadway in the City of Dublin. It contains
four lanes largely fronted by retail and commercial uses west of Dougherty Road.
.. ~Ilacienda Drive is an arterial designed to provide access to I-580. It contains six lanes
south of I-580 and fo~u- lanes north'of I-58U, extending as far north as ®ublin Boulevard.
As part of the Santa Rita Business Center, Hacienda Drive is currently being extended .
northward to Gleason Drive as a two-lane roadway.
Arnold Roud is a north-south two-lane road parallel to and west of Hacienda Drive. It
currently connects Gleason Drive and existing Dublin Boulevard (future Central
Parkway).
Gleason Drive is an east-west two-lane road parallel to and north of Dublin Boulevard. It
serves the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, Federal Correctional Institute and existing
developments along Gleason Drive. Gleason Drive connects Tassajara Road with Arnold
Road.
Tassajara Road extends from Santa Rita Road at I-580 to the Town of Danville (where it
becomes Camino Tassajara). The road is a four lane road which turns into a two lane road
in the more rural areas of the City.
Santa Rita Road is a six-lane divided urban arterial roadway from the I-580 interchange
south to Valley Boulevard. It serves the east side of Pleasanton, including the Hacienda
Business Park and provides access to downtown Pleasanton.
Fallon Road is a two-lane road which extends from I-580. In the future, Dublin
Boulevard will be extended and will connect to Fallon Road.
City of Dublin Page 46
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School '~ January 2009
PA 08-038
Existing Intersection Operations
The traffic analysis prepared by TJKM in September 1999 and in February 2004 for Dublin
Ranch Areas F-H found that existing intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, defined
by the City of Dublin as Level of Service "D" or better. This analysis included counts of existing
traffic at major intersections near the proposed project as well as intersections throughout the
Eastern Dublin area.
Future Baseline Conditions
To implement the transportation and circulation aspects of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan/General Plan, the City of Dublin has undertaken a~ comprehensive program of transportation
improvements in the community. The purpose of this program is to accommodate anticipated
traffic from the Eastern Dublin area. Overall, the program includes upgrades to I-580 freeway
intersections, construction of new roads and improvements to existing roads. The program is
primarily funded by fees levied on new development in eastern Dublin.
Future Baseline Intersection Operations
The traffic impact analysis for Dublin Ranch Areas F-H also analyzed the future baseline
intersection operations with existing traffic, traffic from approved but not yet built or occupied
development and traffic from other pending developments in the area. The traffic analysis
included various mitigation measures whicr~ would . be the responsibility of these other
developments and which would be consistent with the City's Traffic Improvement .Program,
described above. With this future development in the eastern Dublin area and appr=opriate traffic .
:..~iinprovements, the traffic analysis found that the. operation of all study intersections.~:ould:be.
~.~maintained at LOS "D" or better. ~ ~ ~ ~ ..
Previous environmental documents
The Eastern Dublin. EIR identified 16 potentially significant and potentially cumulative
significant impacts related to the development of the EDSP. These include impacts to nearby
freeways, local streets, transit service and similar transportation facilities. Although many of
these impacts could be reduced to a level of less-than-significance, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration was adopted for the following impacts:
• IM 3.3lB: Impacts to mainline I-580 and I-680 freeways
• 1M 3.3/E; Cumulative Freeway impacts
• Il~13.3/I: Santa Rita & I-580 Eastbound freeway ramps
• IM 3.3/M: Cumulative Impacts on Dublin Boulevard
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Dublin Ranch PA F identified a number
of supplemental impacts and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to
transportation. Supplemental Mitigation Measures 7, which requires several transportation
improvements to be constructed and 8, which requires Tassajara Road to be widened, continue to
apply to the proposed Project.
City of Dublin Page 47
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traff c load and street capacity?
LS. The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that development of the land uses,
proposed at that time, would result in significant impacts. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration included two mitigation measures which reduced these impacts to a less than
significant level. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8, in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration
require the construction of several transportation improvements. Several of these
improvements have been constructed. Payment of the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact fee or
construction of the improvements by the developer will be required of this project.
In 2004, the City approved a change in land use from High School (studied in the 2000
Mitigated Negative Declaration) to Public/Semi-Public. The 2004 CEQA Addendum
determined that aPublic/Semi-Public land use would actually generate less traffic than the
High School. The 2004 CEQA Addendum included an updated traffic report as well as a
trip generation letter which studied the construction of a daycare facility on the Project Site.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? LS: Nearby intersections can be mitigated to Level of Service
D or better, which exceeds the minimum Level of Service E established by the Alameda
County Congestion Management Agency. The proposed daycare is consistent with the
current General Plan land use designation of Public/Semi-Public.
c). .Change in air traffic patterns? IV'I. The proposed project would have no impact on air
traffic patterns, since it involves development of a small scale daycare.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? LS. Approval
of the Project would add new driveways, pedestrian paths and a parking lot where none
currently exist. All circulation improvements related to the construction of this Project will
be constructed in accordance with City design requirements to minimize substandard
turning radii, provide for maximum sight visibility distances and minimize other potential
hazards.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? LS. Construction of the new daycare would
increase the need for emergency services and related access. The proposed Project has been
reviewed with respect to emergency access by the City's Fire Department and Police
Department. The Departments have concluded that the site has been adequately designed
for emergency.access.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The project plans indicate that a total of 52 parking stalls
will be constructed on the site. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires daycare facilities to
provide one parking stall for every five children plus one parking stall per employee. The
facility will have up to 180 students and a maximum of 15 employees which therefore
requires a total of 51 parking stalls on site. The project plans indicate that there will be a
total of 52 parking stalls on site which will result in a surplus of one parking stall (over
what is required by the Zoning Ordinance.
City of Dublin Page 48
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
/!../
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation
such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)? LS: The Project Site has been designated for
use as a Public/Semi-Public facility in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
No public transportation facilities or bicycle facilities were anticipated to be located on this
site in the General Plan or the Specific Plan. Public transportation opportunities are
available in Eastern Dublin and bicycle lanes are located in Eastern Dublin as planned for
in the City's Bikeways Master Plan. Bicycle racks will be located at the daycare to
encourage the use of bicycles as a form of transportation for employees and parents and
students.
Overall, no additional impacts related to transportation not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA Addendum are
expected to occur as a result of this Project.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by the following service providers:
Sewage treatment and local water supply: Dublin San Ramor_ Services District and~~
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7.
Storm drainage: City of DublizvAlameda County Flood Control and ~r7Jaf.er
Conservation District;~Lone.7..- ~ . ~ .
The Easiern DDublin EIR contains'23 impacts related to provision of utilities to the Eastern Dublin
area. All were:considered potentially significant impacts and mitigation measures were included
in the EIR to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels.
The 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the 2004 CEQA Addendum did not identify new
or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR related to utilities.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? LS. The regional wastewater
treatment plant is currently operating in compliance with local, state and federal water
quality standards. The addition of wastewater flows from the project would not cause the
plant to exceed such standards, based on discussions with DSRSD staff. Mitigation
measures 3.5/1.0 through 22.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR deal with wastewater
treatment collection, treatment and disposal.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
LS. Existing water and sewer lines are located immediately off-site. In order for
development to take place the developer would be required to connect to existing water and
sewer lines. Construction of a Public/Semi-Public facility on the site has been planned for
and the construction of the proposed Project will not generate a higher demand for these
facilities than what was previously studied.
City of Dublin Page 49
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. The existing off-site drainage system was
constructed to accommodate development within Eastern Dublin. Adopted mitigations will
ensure that the proposed drainage system would accommodate Project storm water runoff.
d) Are Buff cient water supplies available? LS. Approval of the proposed project would result
in an increased demand for water for domestic and irrigation purposes than what currently
exists on the vacant site. Development of the site has been anticipated since adoption of the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a discussion of water needs was included in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR. The previous approved land use, High School, for the Site was a more
intensive land use than what is currently approved for the site. The 2004 CEQA Addendum,
which reviewed impacts related to the change in land use designation from High School to
Public/Semi-Public, determined that there were adequate water supplies to serve the Project
Site. Additionally, development of this site has been planned for in the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Additionally, development of the site has been planned for in
the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the project is subject to Eastern
Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/38.0 requiring awill-serve letter from the City's water
service provider, Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). DSRSD has reviewed the
Project plans and has determined that water use associated with this facility is not a
significant project. DSRSD has included conditions into the Project's Conditions of
Approval. Additionally, as required by DSRSD in the project conditions of approval, the
. .. . ~ site will be required to use recycled water which will .reduce water demand for the site.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to ,serve the proposed project? LS. Approval of the proposed
project would increase the demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions.
Presently, the Planning Area site is vacant and there is no demand for wastewater treatment
service. Based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, DSRSD has indicated
that the local wastewateY- treatment plant has adequate capacity to serve the proposed
project.
f) Solid waste disposal? LS. Construction of the Project would incrementally increase
generation of solid waste. Over the long term, the amount of solid waste reaching landfill
would decrease as statewide regulations mandating increased recycling take effect.
Information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the solid waste hauler can
accommodate this project.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI.
The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler, Amador Valley Industries, would ensure that
the project developers adhere to federal, state and local solid waste regulations.
Overall, no additional impacts related to utilities and the service system not previously identified
in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the 2004 CEQA
Addendum are expected to occur a~ a result of this Project.
16.1V~andatory 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
City of Dublin Page 50
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
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. The
analysis in this Initial Study indicates that the proposed Project will not have a significant
impact on the overall environmental quality including biological or cultural resources with
the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the 2000 Mitigated Negative
Declaration and the mitigation measures, including the Statement of Ovemding
Considerations, contained in the Eastern Dublin 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. The Project Site lies
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Area. A Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone was
adopted for this site which allows Public/Semi-Public Facility. Both the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan anticipate the development of this site with aPublic/Semi-
Public facility.
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 51
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
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
Mike Porto, Consulting Planner
John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney
Jerry Haag, Consulting Planner
References
P/Iiti~ated Ne~tive Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, City of Dublin, 1999
Dublin Ranch Areas F, G and H Ecological impacts and Mitigation, H.T. Harvey &
Associates, 19.99
EasterYZ Dublin SpeciFc Plan/General Plan_Environmental Impact Report, Wa11ac-e -
Roberts and Todd, 1994.
'Traffic Study for the Proposed Dublin Ranch Areas F-H, TJKM Associates, 2001,
Assessment of a Possible Archeological Resource within Dublin Ranch Areas F-II,
Dublin CA, Holman & Associates, 1999
City of Dublin Page 52
CEQA Addendum for the Springfield Montessori School January 2009
PA 08-038
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of
Dublin ("City") adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93,
May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to
approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council later approved land use
applications for Dublin Ranch, including Dublin Ranch Area F. The City Council is
currently considering the Springfield Montessori School project in Dublin Ranch. The
project includes a portion of Area F, and proposes apublic/semi-public development
which is consistent with prior approvals. The project area consists of approximately 2.57
acres, identified in the applications as the Springfield Montessori School.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original
land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a 2002 California
Court of Appeals decision, the City Council hereby adopts specific overriding
considerations for the Springfield Montessori School project.t The City Council believes
that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
that are applicable to the project site will be substantially lessened by mitigation
measures adopted with the original approval and by the environmental protection
measures adopted through the Area F project approvals, and the related Conditions of
Approval, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation,
the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it
unavoidable adverse environmental effects as previously identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. 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, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that
support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following unavoidable significant
environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, for future development of
Eastern Dublin apply to the Springfield Montessori School. The impacts cannot be fully
mitigated by changes or alterations to the project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual
Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although considerable
development has occurred throughout Dublin Ranch and the site is presently undeveloped
land, and has some open space character. Future development of the project site will
contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway
Impacts: The Traffic Study prepared for the Area F Stage 1 Development Plan (2000
' "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later
project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better
Environment v. California Resources Agency_(2002)103 Ca1.App. 4`'' 98, 125.
EXHIBIT B
Mitigated Negative Declaration), the 2004 CEQA Addendum and the Eastern Dublin
EIR, update cumulative impacts to the 1-580 and 1-680 freeways from development in
Eastern Dublin. While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through
planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor
program, and the extension of Fallon Road to Tassajara Road and other similar measures,
mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on the site will incrementally contribute to the
unavoidable freeway impacts.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/l, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative
Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Springfield Montessori School project will be required to
implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to
the City's Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program; however even with mitigation these impacts
continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable
Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases
in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water
Distribution System: Development of the Springfield Montessori School project will
contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary
Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the project could be subject to
damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E: Future development of the project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and
stationary source emissions.
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the
Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant
adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances
those unavoidable impacts that apply to development of the Springfield Montessori
School project against the benefits of the project as set forth below. The City Council,
acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that unavoidable
impacts of the project are outweighed by the substantial benefits of developing a
Public/Semi-Public facility.
The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the
comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals.
Development of the project will provide a 16,002 square foot public/semi-public building
which is located in close proximity to residential dwellings and will provide a service to
all residents and employees in Dublin and the region. The project will provide a
Public/Semi-Public space which will accomplish the City Council's goal of providing
Public/Semi-Public uses throughout the City.