HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attch 4 Exh B Initial Study April 2010Initial Study
Project:
Jordan Ranch Property
File # PA 09-011
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
April 2010
EXHIBIT B TO
ATTACHMENT 4
Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................... ...................................................2
Prior Environmental Impact Reports ................... ...................................................2
Applicant/ Contact Person .................................... ...................................................5
Project Description ................................................ ...................................................5
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....... ................................................. 20
Determination ........................................................ ................................................. 20
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................. .................................................22
Environmental Impacts ......................................... ................................................. 23
Earlier Analyses/ Incorporation by Reference .... ................................................. 32
Discusson of Checklist .......................................... .................................................34
1. Aesthetics .................................................... .................................................34
2. Agricultural Resources .............................. .................................................37
3. Air Quality .................................................. .................................................38
4. Biological Resources .................................. .................................................47
5. Cultural Resources ..................................... .................................................52
6. Geology and Soils ...................................... .................................................55
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......... .................................................58
8. Hydrology and Water Quality .................. .................................................61
9. Land Use and Planning ............................. .................................................66
10. Mineral Resources .................................... .................................................67
11. Noise ......................................................... .................................................67
12. Population and Housing ......................... .................................................74
13. Public Services .......................................... .................................................74
14. Recreation ................................................. .................................................77
15. Transportation/ Traffic ............................ ................................................. 79
16. Utilities and Service Systems .................. ................................................. 87
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... .................................................91
Initial Study Preparers .......................................... ................................................. 92
Agencies and Organizations Consulted .............. .................................................92
References .............................................................. .................................................92
Appendix ................................................................ ................................................. 93
INITIAL STUDY
Jordan Ranch Property/Fallon Village Area
PA # 09-011
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000-15387). This Initial Study analyzes
whether any further environmental review is required for the Jordan Ranch Project
under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
sections 15162 and 15163. Development of the Jordan Ranch property has been
previously analyzed in three environmental impact reports which have been certified
by the City: (1) Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064; (2) East Dublin
Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2001052114); and (3) Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2005062010). This Initial
Study analyzes whether the proposed Jordan Ranch Project will result in any new or
substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those analyzed in
these prior EIRs or whether any other of the other standards requiring further
environmental review under CEQA are met.
This Initial Study assesses program changes and development-level activities to
implement that program through Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning, including a
Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR approval, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, a
Development Agreement, and related development permits on the Jordan Ranch
Property ("Project site"), all of which are described below in the Project Description.
These entitlements are referred to herein as the "Project."
Prior Environmental Impact Reports
This Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. A considerable
amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in Eastern
Dublin, including the Project site. A Program Environmental Impact Report was
certified through Resolution No. 51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
91103064; ('Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR"). That EIR evaluated the following impacts:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and
Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air
Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution No. 53-93, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts:
cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of
certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption
of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water
treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system,
inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground
shaking, loss of degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise
and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate.
In 2001, the East Dublin Property Owners (EDPO) requested annexation, pre-zoning
and related approvals for a 1,120 acre Project Area, including the Jordan Ranch
Property. The Project Area was within the development area previously approved by
the City in 1993; and was within the scope of the project/program analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. In response to EDPO and consistent with the City's practice for
projects in Eastern Dublin, in 2001 the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the
annexation and pre-zoning requests would require additional environmental review
beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. That 2001 Initial Study disclosed that
many of the anticipated impacts of the proposed annexation and pre-zoning were
adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given the
comprehensive planning for the development area; the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of
buildout under the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations and policies; the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses; the fact that annexation
and pre-zoning actions were specifically contemplated in the Eastern Dublin EIR; and
the fact that the annexation request proposed the same land uses analyzed for the
Project Area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although the 2001 Initial Study concluded that
the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed annexation and rezoning, it also identified the potential for
some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City determined that the potential new and/or
substantially intensified impacts required review at an EIR level and concluded that a
Supplemental EIR should be prepared. So, in 2001 and 2002, the Eastern Dublin EIR was
updated and supplemented by the East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan
and Annexation Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2001052114). That
Supplemental EIR, referred to in this Initial Study as the "2002 SEIR," provided updated
analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, noise, traffic and circulation,
schools, and utilities. In certifying the 2002 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City
Council, through Resolution No. 40-02, adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for cumulative air quality and cumulative traffic impacts. The 2002 SEIR
was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate.
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
In 2005, a second Supplemental EIR (identified as the "2005 Supplement" or "2005
SEIR" in this Initial Study) was prepared and certified by the City of Dublin for the
Fallon Village project, which included the same properties as the 2002 SEIR (see City
Council Resolution No. 222-05). The second SEIR addressed new and detailed
information for the proposed development areas, and, as well as several changes in
circumstances since the prior EIRs which could have affected the impacts and/or
mitigations previously identified for the Fallon Village Project. Such changes in the
previously analyzed project and circumstances included, but were not limited to: 1)
continued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond with potential changes in
commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect air quality and noise
within or on the Project area; 2) changes in the provision and distribution of some
public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater, and storm drainage), 3)
changes in circulation patterns on the Fallon Village site; 4) completion of a Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for biological and cultural resources on the Fallon Village site
and additional site-specific biological and cultural resources studies which did not
previously exist; 5) changes in the development density and intensity in the Fallon
Village Project area that may increase impacts over those previously reviewed; and 6)
submittal of Stage 2 Development Plans, subdivision maps and other permit
applications containing detailed development plans for the northern portion of Fallon
Village known as Positano not previously reviewed at a project level.
Unlike the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 SEIR, the 2005 Supplemental EIR was a
combination Program-level document and a Project-level document. The program-level
portion of 2005 SEIR focused on the new or substantially increased significant impacts
of potential future development pursuant to a proposed General Plan, Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, and Stage 1 Development Plan amendments for the entire 1,138-acre
project area, including the Jordan Ranch Project site. Additionally, the 2005
Supplemental EIR reviewed proposed individual development projects for the northern
portion of the area, the environmental impacts they would generate, and the avoidance
and mitigation measures they would employ at a project-level. The Jordan Ranch
property was analyzed at a program level in this document. However, it was intended
to be used as the environmental review for the approval of future project level
entitlements (such as the Stage 2 Planned Development Zoning and SDR) unless the
standards under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15162 and 15163 were met.
Mitigation Measures contained in the three previous Environmental Impact Reports
applicable to the Project site will be applied to the current Project.
The Eastern Dublin EIR, 2002 SEIR and 2005 SEIR are collectively referred to herein as
"prior EIRs" or "previous EIRs."
This Initial Study has been prepared to address requested land use entitlements for the
Jordan Ranch Property within the Fallon Village area as described more fully below.
This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is
required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances
and prior EIRs referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
Applicant/Contact Person
Mission Valley Properties
Attn: Mr. Kevin Fryer
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: (925) 467 9900
Project Description
Project location and context
The Project includes proposed land use entitlements for an approximately 187.9-acre
site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows the Project site location in
Eastern Dublin. The site is bounded on the west by Fallon Road and Positano Parkway,
on the north by the Positano residential community being developed by Braddock &
Logan, on the on the east by property owned by the Croak family and on the south by
property owned by the Chen family.
Access to the site is provided by Fallon Road, a major arterial roadway in the Eastern
Dublin Planning Area. Fallon Road has a major interchange with the I-580 freeway
south of the Project site, extends north adjacent to and west of the Jordan Ranch
property, then turns to the west to provide access to other properties in Eastern Dublin,
eventually connecting with Tassajara Road. Positano Parkway intersects with Fallon
Road adjacent to Jordan Ranch and extends north into the Positano development.
Central Parkway would be extended east of Fallon Road as part of the Project to
provide access to the development area southeast of the drainage swale. Regional
access to the site is provided by Interstate 580 to the south.
Exhibit 2 shows the Jordan Ranch in context with other surrounding properties and
features.
The Project site is currently vacant and was previously used for cattle grazing. It
formerly contained a single-family dwelling and associated outbuildings. Surrounding
land uses include Dublin Sports Park, being developed on the west side of Fallon Road,
west of the Project site, single family residences in the Positano community to the north
and generally vacant lands to the east and south.
Site topography is characterized by rolling hills and grasslands with shallow to
moderate topographic relief. The previous use of the site was as a cattle ranch. The site
contains three generally north-south-running drainage courses as well as a number of
naturally occurring and man-made ponds. A number of native and non-native stands of
trees are present on the property.
City of Dublin Page
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Project background and prior planning approvals
The Jordan Ranch Property is located in the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP)
area. Previous City of Dublin land use approvals regarding the Project site include:
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.
In 1993, the City Council approved the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
(EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The approved project was a
modified version of the original EDGPA for the 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning
area. The original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on
County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture/ open space
designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time,
a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres within the larger 6,920-acre EDGPA. The EDSP
supplements the EDGPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs
and regulations.
The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was
projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres
designated for Rural Residential with a 100-acre minimum parcel size. Approximately
10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres, 571 acres of
designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. Buildout was expected
to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction.
The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning area.
Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 9470 of the new commercial
space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact
villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating
commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was based on the original 6,920-acre planning area and land use
designations, and 3,328-acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. As required by
CEQA, the EIR also identified project alternatives, including a Reduced Planning Area
(RPA) alternative, which the City Council adopted in a modified form in 1993.
The adopted modified RPA alternative reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, provided
for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGPA area only within the
Dublin Sphere of Influence.
2002 Prezoning and Annexation. In 2001, an application was filed with the City by a
number of owners in the Eastern Dublin area to annex the area to the City and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District area (DSRSD). Applications were also filed for
prezoning to the PD-Planned Development Zoning District and a related Stage 1
Development Plan to guide future development of the Fallon Village area. The
annexation and prezoning were approved. These actions all included the Jordan
Property.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
As required by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the 2002 prezoning included a Stage 1
Development Plan. The 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan covered the entire Fallon
Village Project area and reflects the general land use types, densities and locations
established in the 1993 Eastern Dublin project approvals. At the time of annexation, the
residential land use intensity was established by using the mid-point of the allowable
density ranges. Retail, industrial and office land use intensity was established by
defined floor area ratio. In approving the 2002 Stage 1 Development Plan, the City
further established maximum development intensities by property. The Stage 1
Development Plan also included a master landscape plan and development phasing
plan.
Resource Management Plan. In 2003, the City retained a team of consultants to prepare
a Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the Project area. The RMP implements
mitigation measure SM-BIO-1 adopted with the 2002 annexation and prezoning
approvals. The purpose of the RMP was to address impacts to biological resources in a
coordinated manner across the entire Fallon Village Project area. The effort included
conducting necessary biological analyses and developing necessary protection and/or
management methods. The RMP was accepted by the Dublin City Council in September
2004 and was used as one of the key documents in formulating the amended 2005 Stage
1 Development Plan.
2005 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments. These amendments
proposed to include all of the Fallon Village Project area into the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. Also proposed was a Planned Development Rezoning amending the then-existing
Stage 1 Development Plan to modify overall land use patterns within the Fallon Village
area and adopting a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Development Agreement and
Subdivision Map for the approximately 486 acres in the northerly portion of the Fallon
Village area. The 2005 Project also included Williamson Act Contract cancellation for
certain properties.
The 2005 GPA, current Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and Stage 1 PD Rezoning designate
the Project site as a mix of Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential,
Medium-High Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Community Park,
Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open Space and Elementary School site.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 1. Jordan Ranch Existing Stage 1 Planned Development Land Uses
Land Use Acres Density
(units/acre) Non-
Residential
S q. Ft. Dwellings
Single-Family 48.0 4 -- 192
Medium Density
Residential 23.4 10 -- 234
Medium-High
Density Residential 21.8 20 -- 542
Mixed Use 6.4 15/0.3 FAR 83,635 96
Elementary School 10.0 -- -
Neighborhood Park 5.8 - --
Neighborhood
Square 2.7 -- --
Community Park 11.1 -- -- -
Semi-Public 2.4 -- --
Open Space 60.5 - -- -
Total 189.7 - 83,635 1,064
Source: Dublin City Council Resolution No. 223-05 approved December s, zuu5
Project Characteristics
Overview
The application includes a request to the City of Dublin for a Stage 2 Planned
Development Rezoning and Development Plan, Site Development Review (SDR),
Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and a Development Agreement.
Stage 2 Rezoning and Development Plan. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan for
this Project includes construction of a mix of 780 dwelling units, up to 12,000 square
feet of commercial uses, a range of public parks, public and semi-public uses, open
spaces and roadways. Table 2 includes a statistical summary of proposed uses.
City of Dublin Page S
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 2. Jordan Ranch Proposed Stage 2 Planned Development Land Uses
Land Use Density
Ran e* Dwellings Gross
Acres** Units/Acre
Low Density
Residential 0.9-6.0 du / ac 252 52.7 4.8
Medium Density
Residential 6.1-14.0 du/ac 201 29.2 6.9
Medium-High
Density Residential 14.1-25 du/ac. 222 15.8 14.1
Mixed Use MU (105 units
+ up to 12,000
sf retail)
105
6.6
15.9
School -- - 10.1
Community Park -- -- 11.1
Neighborhood Park -- -- 5.8
Neighborhood
Square -- -- 2.7
Semi-Public -- -- 2.7 (2.0 net)
Open Space -- -- 52.7
Total - 780 189.7**` 4.1
Density range contained in existing Stage 1 Planned Development approval
" Approx. gross acreages of the areas proposed in the Jordan Ranch Project
Includes land use adjustment for dedication of land for Positano Pkwy.
Source: Project Applicant, 2010
Development under the proposed Development Plan would be oriented around a major
northeast to southwest drainage swale, which would be preserved as the major open
space feature of the Jordan Ranch Project.
Land uses northwest of the Open Space are would consist of Low Density, single family
dwellings on individual lots as well as a Neighborhood Park. Uses southeast of the
Open Space area would include a mix of cluster houses, small-lot alley-oriented
dwellings, three-story townhouses and townhouses with flats, a community park,
neighborhood square, a mixed -area, public/semi-public uses and a school site.
Exhibit 3 depicts the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan.
Following is a brief description of each major residential component:
Single-family dwellings: Up to 252 dwellings would be built in the northwest portion
of the Project site, one on each subdivided lot. Dwellings would be of one-and two-
story construction with attached garages. Dwellings would be setback from adjacent
streets and from interior lot lines.
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Cluster dwellings: Up to 111 cluster dwellings would be built on the southeast side of
the main Open Space corridor. This dwelling type would include small two-story
dwellings ranging from approximately 1,596 to 2,111 square feet each. Dwellings
would be constructed in clusters of four dwellings served by private access drives to
individual garages. Maximum building heights would be up to 30 feet above
finished grade.
Small lot alley units: Small lot alley-oriented dwellings would be sited in the
approximate center of the eastern portion of the Project site. Up to 94 dwellings of
this type would be built. Small lot dwellings would contain between 1,510 to 1,931
square feet in four floor plan types. These dwellings would include both two-story
and three-story construction with a maximum height of up to 30 feet above finished
grade. Each dwelling would have a two-car garage access from an alley to the rear of
the dwelling.
Townhouses: Up to 218 townhouse units would be built in the southeast portion of
the Project site. These units would be built as both three-plex and six-plex attached
dwellings in a three-story configuration Townhouses would contain between 1,711
to 2,136 square feet in four floor plans. A two-car garage would be provided for each
dwelling. Maximum heights of the townhouses would be up to 40 feet above final
grade.
Mixed Use Units: The Mixed-Use portion of the Project would be on approximately
6.6 acres of the site on the south side of the extension of Central Parkway adjacent to
the eastern property line of the Project site. This component of the Project would
include up to 105 dwellings and up to 12,000 square feet of retail space. The
proposed design of this area would include flex-retail space on the ground floor
with residential lofts on upper floors.
Buildings in the Mixed-Use component would be constructed in complexes of 7
units each with a three-story configuration. Maximum building heights would be up
to 40 feet above finished grade. Each dwelling would include an enclosed 2-car
garage plus one guest space per each unit.
Precise land uses within the Mixed-Use component of the Project are not known at
this time, but are regulated by the listing of Permitted Uses contained in the existing
Stage 1 Planned Development zoning. Typical uses could be retail commercial uses
(including but not limited to retail sales of clothing, gifts, books and similar), office
and service uses (including but not limited to accountants, architects, hair salons,
travel agents), eating and drinking establishments and residential dwellings.
Parks: The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan includes an approximate 11.1-acre
(gross) Community Park to be located between Central Parkway and the southern
property line, an approximate 5.8-acre Neighborhood Park on the east side of the
Single-Family Home portion of the Site and northwest of the central Open Space
feature. An approximately 2.7-acre Neighborhood Square would be sited in the
southeast corner of the site.
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Park sites are shown on Exhibit 3.
PubliclSemi-Public Uses: An approximate 2-acre site has been reserved in the
southeast portion of the Project Site for a future semi-public use. This use or uses
will be determined in the future and will be consistent with the intent of the City to
provide a site for such uses as a child-care facility, church or similar use. A 10.1-acre
(gross) Elementary School Site has been reserved on the eastern portion of the
Project site.
Open Space: The primary Open Space feature would be located in the approximate
center of the Project site, in an area currently devoted to site drainage. As required
by the Resource Management Plan, the Open Space area would preserve existing
biological resources on the Jordan ranch property, including wetland features. The
Open Space area would also contain a trail network.
Building Designs. The overall design of the site is intended to reflect a time when
simple farmhouses, cottages and barns were the predominant built structures among
the hillsides. The design intent is to create a community that touches upon the history of
the site. To accomplish this, a rural palette of architectural styles is used to develop the
theme: Farmhouse, Cottage, Shingle, Italianate, and Folk Victorian.
The simplicity of the structures is the key element used to evoke this theme. Homes are
proposed to have a basic massing and form, which is the framework of the design
theme. This is an important feature because the architectural style would not have
much ornamentation. Pitch breaks, dormers, lifts and dropped plates accent the
simplicity of the massing and are features that are common to the style.
Modest materials associated with local rural buildings are also important features of the
Project's design theme. These materials are proposed to be used in different
combinations to create both traditional and more contemporary interpretations of the
architectural styles. Examples include:
Elevation Materials:
Lap siding
Shingle siding
Board and Batt siding
Stucco
Roofing Materials:
Composition Shingle
Standing seam metal roofing
Accent Materials:
Brick
Stone
Shutters
Potshelves
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Access and Circulation. Primary access to the Project site would continue to the
provided by Fallon Road. Central Parkway would also be extended in an east-west
direction through the southern portion of the site that would provide access to the
townhouse neighborhoods, the Community Park, the Neighborhood Square, the mixed-
use area and the Semi-Public area. It is intended that Central Parkway would be
extended further east to connect with Croak Road off of the Project site, which is not
part of this Project.
The neighborhood in the northwest portion of the site would be served by three
roadway connections with Fallon Road, one to Positano Parkway and one to the single-
family neighborhood to the north (La Vina).
A number of smaller local roadways would be constructed throughout the Jordan
Ranch site linking each of the neighborhoods, parks and other uses with Central
Parkway and Fallon Road. These roads are shown on Exhibit 3.
Roads would be a mix of public roads, within the single-family neighborhoods, and
private roads in the small lot alley dwellings, townhouse and mixed use
neighborhoods.
In terms of pedestrian access, sidewalks would be provided adjacent to all public roads
and a public trail would be constructed adjacent to both sides of the Open Space
corridor. There would also be a pedestrian and bicycle trail link between the northwest
and southeastern portions of the Project though the Open Space area.
Parking. Each of the various Project components would include on-site parking for
various uses. Generally, each dwelling would include an enclosed 2-car garage on each
lot. There would also be various open guest parking spaces throughout the Small Lot
Alley Home complex, the Townhouse Complexes and the Mixed-Use Complex.
Utility Services: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide domestic
and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services.
The Project site has been annexed into DSRSD as part of previous actions relative to
Fallon Village (formerly EDPO) and such services are planned to the Project Site in
accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
The Project Developer will be required to install local waterlines as well as paying fees
to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to transport wastewater to DSRSD's regional treatment plant. Sewer lines
are all proposed to be gravity flow.
Recycled water would be provided to the Project site for use in irrigation of common
open space areas and other areas. This would reduce the need for potable water for the
proposed Project.
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Preliminary drainage plans including collecting stormwater runoff in a series of
underground pipes within streets and easements and transporting drainage flows to a
central pipeline within the main Open Space area. Low-flow stormwater would enter a
water quality pond in the southwest corner of the Jordan Ranch property (described
below) for filtration and cleansing pursuant to clean water requirements before
entering the G-3 regional drainage facility south of the site. Stormwater generated by
development of urban uses on the Jordan Ranch would then flow into the Arroyo
Mocho and ultimately into San Francisco Bay.
Water Quality Protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management
Practices to support water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. For the
Jordan Ranch Project, surface stormwater runoff would flow into a multi-purpose
drainage basin located in the southwest portion of the site that would detain water and
also serve as a bio-swale to filter and cleanse stormwater run-off prior to entering the
regional drainage system.
Project Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the Project site to allow construction
of the various development areas, extend roadways and improve site drainage.
It is anticipated that grading quantities will balance on site with no need for
import or export of fill material.
Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Dublin's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68)
requires that 12.5 percent of the number of dwelling units in each development project
be restricted for occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households.
Provision of up to 57o of these the 12.5% of the inclusionary units may be satisfied
through payment of an in-lieu fee to the City. Implementation of the City's inclusionary
requirement for this Project will be identified in the Development Agreement.
Phasing. It anticipated that the proposed Project would be constructed in several
phases. Phasing for the overall proposed Project is unknown and subject to market
demands. Utility connections, access, grading and emergency services would be
provided to meet the requirements of the City of Dublin and other potentially affected
service providers.
Public Art. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the
Project applicant proposes to pay applicable public art fees to the City to satisfy
requirements for providing public art.
Development Agreement. A Development Agreement is proposed to be executed
between the City of Dublin and the applicant, pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan. The terms of the Development Agreement will not result in any significant
environmental impacts beyond those caused by the implementation of the Jordan
Ranch Project that are analyzed in this Initial Study.
Requested land use entitlements
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
The following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of
the proposed Project:
• Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and a Stage 2 PD Development Plan;
• Site Design Review (SDR) approval;
• A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map; and
• A Development Agreement.
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Exhibit 1-Site Location in Eastern Dublin
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Exhibit 2- Jordan Ranch Site Context
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Exhibit 3-Proposed Stage 2 Development Plan
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
1. Project description The applicant requests approval of a Stage 2
Planned Development rezoning, a Stage 2 PD
Development Plan, Site Development Review
approval and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision
map to allow the development of up to 780
dwellings and 12,000 square feet of retail
commercial uses along with a Community
Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood
Square, Public/Semi-Public site and a major
Open Space feature on a 189.7 acre site. The
Project also includes approval of a
Development Agreement, extension of
roadways, site grading and extension of
utilities to the site.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person: Mike Porto, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: East of Fallon Road, north and south of the
planned extension of Central Parkway
5. Project contact person: Kevin Fryer
Mission Valley Properties
5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 170
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Phone: (925) 467 9900
6. Existing General Plan Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac.),
Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du/ac.),
Medium-High Density Residential (14.1-25.0
du / ac.), Mixed Use,Elementary School,
Community Park, Neighborhood Park,
Neighborhood Square, Semi-Public and Open
Space.
8. Existing & Proposed PD-Planned Development
Zoning:
9. Other public agency necessary, potential and/or desired approvals:
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
• Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and
Building Permits (Dublin)
• Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
• Encroachment permits (Dublin)
• Finding of Consistency with Alameda
Co. Airport Land Use Plan (Alameda
County Airport Land Use Commission)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources
Control Board)
• 404 Permits (US Army Corps of
Engineers)
• Streambed Alteration Permit (California
Department of Fish and Game)
• Permits from San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this
Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology / Water - Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/
Housing
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/ Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Si nificance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_ I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_ I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a Addendum will be prepared.
_ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant
effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but
at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must
only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant
effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for
those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for
which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the
City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the
2002 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and the 2005 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report will be prepared.
Signature:
Date: April 30, 2010
Printed Name: Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
For: City of Dublin Planning Department
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact"
answers are supported by the information sources the lead agency cites in
the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone), or, in this case, there is no
impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered
previously in the 1993 EIR, and / or the 2002 SEIR, and / or the 2005 SEIR,
and/or for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted
by the City Council at the time the 1993 EIR and / or the 2002 SEIR and / or
2005 SEIR was certified. A "no impact" answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as
direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that an effect is significant. It there are one or more "potentially
significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than
significant impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found
following the checklist.
1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? (Source: 1,2,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2,6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 1, 6)
2. Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,3, 4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 6,7)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,3,6)
3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2,3,4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 23
April 30, 2010
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(2,3,4)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 6,7)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2,3 ,4,7 )
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3,4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 24
April 30, 2010
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,3,4)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,4,6)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,4,6)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,4,6)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2)
6. Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2,
5,7)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 6)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (2,6)
iv) Landslides? (2, 5)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2,6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2, 6)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
(Source: 2, 6)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti anon Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 25
April 30, 2010
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1, 2)
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials
(Source: 2, 4, 7)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 2, 4, 7)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 4, 7)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 7)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (Source: 2,4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 2, 4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(Source: 2, 4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 26
April 30, 2010
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,7)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 4)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted? (2,4)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,4)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or areas, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 4, 7)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 6)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 4)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
delineation map? (Source: 2,7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 27
April 30, 2010
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 2,7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, and death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (2)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 4)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2,4)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1, 2,4)
10. Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 2)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (5)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels? (Source: 4,5)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (5)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 28
April 30, 2010
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (5)
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (2,4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,4)
12. Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 2,7)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (6, 7)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6, 7)
13. Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 2)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 29
April 30, 2010
14. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2,4)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2,4)
15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)? (4)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (4)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (4)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (48)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(4)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 30
April 30, 2010
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2,4)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(2,6)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (4,7
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (3)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments? (4)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (2)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (2)
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti ation Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property
PA 09-011
Page 31
April 30, 2010
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Miti anon Less than
Significant
Impact No New
Impact
X
X
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan EIR
3. 2002 Supplemental EIR
4. 2005 Supplemental EIR
5. Project Acoustic Report (2010)
6. Site Visit
7. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
The following Environmental Impact Reports have been used in the preparation
of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business
hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study.
Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064)
• East Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, January 2002 and Final SEIR
(March 2002) (SCH #2001052114)
• Fallon Village Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
August 2005 and Final SEIR (SCH #2005062010)
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
This Initial Study analyzes whether any further environmental review than that
performed in these prior certified EIRs is required for the Jordan Ranch Project
under the standards of Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines
section 15162 and 15163. This Initial Study analyzes whether the proposed Jordan
Ranch Project will result in any new or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior EIRs or whether any other
of the standards requiring further environmental review under CEQA are met.
If the Initial Study determines that there are no new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts than those analyzed in the prior EIRs and no CEQA
standard for subsequent or supplemental review is met, then the impact is identified
as "No New Impact."
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The Project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to
urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993.
The Project site is characterized by a combination of rolling hills and grasslands with
shallow to moderate topographic relief. Portions of the site adjacent to Fallon Road are
typically flatter and contained a farmstead, since removed. A number of native and
non-native trees are located on the Site and no major rock outcroppings are found on
the Site.
The closest scenic highway to the Project site is the I-580 freeway to the south. The
Jordan Ranch property has limited visibitility from I-580 from the south, with direct
views blocked by low hills located directly south of the site, north of the freeway. No
portions of the Project site are identified as a "Visually Sensitive Ridgeline-Restricted
Development."
Surrounding properties consist of similar uses, including moderate to steeply sloping
areas to the east and south, towards the I-580 freeway. There are no existing public
parks, trails, public vistas or other public gathering places on the Site.
As a largely rural, undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site.
Regulatory framework and Previous EIRs
Dublin General Plan. The Project Site is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 in Section 2.1.4 of the General Plan states that
"proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further,
Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all
applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
(EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,400 acres of land in
the Eastern Dublin area.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/13) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural
features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) but
not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.014.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8/1)) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require implementation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but allow development on foreground hills. The measures also limit
development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would
extend above a ridge top.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8 / I)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
Neither the 2002 nor the 2005 Supplemental EIRs identified additional visual impacts or
mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Many of the mitigation measures are also EDSP policies and programs. The 2005 SEIR
contains an extensive listing of EDSP policies related to visual resources in the Fallon
Village Project area (DEIR pp. 196-197).
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted
scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the Site as lying within
Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined primarily by
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park, rural residential, open
slopes or riparian drainage areas.
Policy 11 states that development should "celebrate open space, with distant views as
well as with foreground view and right-of-way landscaping."
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to all applicable mitigation measures
from previous EIRs and other land use regulations dealing with aesthetics, visual
conditions and light and glare.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts regarding
scenic vistas, since no such areas exist on the Site. Approval and implementation
of the Project would create several public gathering places on the site, including
a Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square and central Open
Space feature, so that residents and visitors would have an opportunity to take
advantage of views of nearby and distant hillsides. No new or substantially more
severe impacts regarding substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas have been
identified with regard to the proposed Project that have not been analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR or other SEIRs.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic
highway? No New Impact. The proposed Project would include grading of the
site to create flat building pads, parking areas, park areas, roads and similar
areas, all of which would change the visual character of the Project site. Such
grading has been anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the two
subsequent SEIRs and the proposed Jordan Ranch Project will be required to
adhere to existing Mitigation Measures (identified in the Regulatory Framework
section, above) to reduce potential damage to scenic resources to a less-than-
significant level. The majority of proposed buildings on site would be blocked
from the south by the existing low hills immediately to the south. No
development would occur on any visually sensitive ridge tops as defined in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Motorists using I-580 would likely see proposed grading of the higher elevations
of the site. Graded areas would be revegetated as required by Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 to ensure that graded areas would blend in with
existing natural slopes.
All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and visual
policies contained in the EDSP would apply to this Project. The Project would
result in no new or substantially more severe significant impacts regarding
scenic resources than have been analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New
Impact. The proposed Project includes approving and implementing
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
development-level land use entitlements on the Project site. Aesthetic impacts
would include disturbance of existing vegetation, paving of undeveloped land to
create project roadways and grading to create development areas. The Eastern
Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and
aesthetics impacts of implementing the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the following measure to mitigate this impact
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the Project site
which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..." However, the
EIR concluded that even with adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and
open space in the Project area would remain a potentially significant impact.
A potential visual impact would be grading and recontouring of the site, which
would be required to facilitate the proposed development. The Eastern Dublin
EIR addresses this potential through Impact 3.8/B and includes mitigation to
reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Project
includes the same overall types, locations and intensity of land use as assumed in
prior EIRs, however, fewer dwellings would be constructed on the site than have
been previously analyzed. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan shows the
dwellings can be accommodated consistent with adopted mitigation measures
and EDSP policies. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts have
been identified in this Initial Study than were previously analyzed in the prior
EIRs.
d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The Project site contains no light sources
and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in
the form of streetlights along collector and interior roads as well as new housing
and yard lights. The potential effect of increased light and glare was analyzed in
the Initial Studies for the 2002 SEIR (p. 77) and the 2005 SEIR. These analyses
concluded that no significant light and glare impacts would result from
development of the EDSP in the Fallon Village area. City development
requirements to restrict spillover of unwanted light will apply to this proposed
Project. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts have
been identified with respect to light and glare impacts than have been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting and Previous CEOA Documents
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project site as "lands of
locally important farmlands." Impact 3.1/F found that the cumulative loss of
agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of
agricultural operations to be less-than-significant.
The Project site is currently vacant and has historically been used for cattle grazing,
although no cattle are currently on the site. Existing zoning is PD-Planned
Development. No Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements have been recorded
on the Project site based on information contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Figure
3.1-C.)
The 2002 SEIR found no new supplemental impacts with respect to prime agricultural
lands in the Fallon Village area beyond those analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR.
The Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR (Appendix 1) found that potential impacts to
agricultural resources were less-than-significant and no supplemental analysis of this
topic was included in that SEIR.
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use ? No New Impact.
Conversion of the site to urban uses was planned in the Eastern Dublin GPA and
SP, and analyzed in the EDEIR and 2002 SEIR. The Project site is vacant and is
not currently used for agricultural production or cattle grazing, although it was
farmed in the past. The site is surrounded on two sides--north and west --with
urban development. The property north of the site has been developed with the
Positano residential community. A Community Park is being built just west of
the site by the City of Dublin. Therefore, approval and implementation of the
proposed Project would result in no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts than have been analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No
New Impact. The proposed Project is presently zoned for urban uses and would
not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning and would not conflict with a
Williamson Act Agreement, since none exist on the Property. Therefore, no
impacts would result with respect to these topics.
3. Air Quality
Air pollution climatoloa. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is
determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are
wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub
regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San
Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly
prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both
morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution
potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall.
High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between
the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Ambient air quality standards
Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each
pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants
because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria
documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects
and major sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are
summarized in Table 4.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related
effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and
particulate matter (PM,,, and PM,.,).
Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and
can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
"Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined
as "suspended particulate matter" or PM10. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5). PM2_5, by definition, is included in PM10.
Ambient air quality. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide
variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either
due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD
maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site is
in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring
site for the period 2005-2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air quality
standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone
and PM10 are exceeded.
Attainment status and regional air quality plan s. The federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as
a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable /attainment for the federal PM10 and PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a non-attainment area for ozone
and particulate matter (PM10 and PM,.,). The county is either attainment or unclassified
for other pollutants.
Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air.
Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that
information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality)
and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in
order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor
vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area
Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone
standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard.
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources
pollutant created by the action of Respiratory function ozone precursors are
sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. combustion sources
(primarily reactive hydrocarbons such as factories and
and oxides of nitrogen. Often automobiles, and
called photochemical smog. evaporation of
solvents and fuels.
Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, Impairment of oxygen Automobile exhaust,
Monoxide colorless gas that is highly toxic. It transport in the combustion of fuels,
is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood
combustion of fuels. Aggravation of in woodstoves and
cardiovascular disease. fireplaces.
Fatigue, headache,
confusion, dizziness.
Can be fatal in the case
of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors Increased risk of acute Automobile and
Dioxide the air, formed during combustion. and chronic respiratory diesel truck exhaust,
disease. industrial processes,
fossil-fueled power
plants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle
with a pungent, irritating odor. obstruction lung exhaust, oil-
disease. powered power
Increased risk of acute plants, industrial
and chronic respiratory processes.
disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of chronic Combustion,
Matter soot, aerosols and other matter disease and heart/lung automobiles, field
which are small enough to remain disease symptoms. burning, factories
suspended in the air for a long and unpaved roads.
period of time. Also a result of
photochemical
processes.
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PM10 Annual Average -- 20 pg/m3
24-Hour 150 pg / m3 50 N / m3
PMZ.S Annual 15 pg/m3 12 pg/m3
24-Hour 35 pg/m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 pg/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 Ng/m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pg/m3 --
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM = Farts per Million
g/m 3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08)
http•/ /www arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
2005 2006 2007
Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2
Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3
Ozone Federal 8-Hour 1 5 1
PM,o Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
PM10 State 24-Hour 0 3 2
PMZ_5 Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide State/Federal
8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http:
/Iwww.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart)
Sensitive receltors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where
sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing
residences just north of the site (Positano) and proposed City parks on the Project site
and to the west of the site. A school site is included on the east side of the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and the
SEIRs in 2002 and 2005, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change
has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in
2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which
set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the Project's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2002 and 2005 SEIRs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and
SEIRs have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate
change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA
Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). 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 (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 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 and SEIRs were
certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce
climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early
1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were
extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2005, the Governor issued
Executive Order # 5-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in
California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on
climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in
May 1993 and the certification of the SEIRs in 2002 and 2005. Under CEQA standards, it
is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative
declaration. No environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required
under CEQA.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational
impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality
impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts
(IM 3.11 /A) to less than significant through measures such as watering
construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks, and
cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative impact remained
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 /B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and
unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11 /Q but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures,
many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 /E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
2002 SEIR. The 2002 Supplemental EIR found two supplemental air quality impacts, as
follows:
• Supplemental Impact AQ-1 found that mobile source emissions of Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM-10)
would be significant as related to the overall EDPO Project. Even with adherence
to the Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, these emissions would be a
significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
Supplemental Impact AQ-2 found that emission of carbon monoxide that would
be generated from vehicle trips as a result of project buildout would not exceed
local, state or federal standards for emission of carbon monoxide. This impact
was therefore less-than-significant.
2005 SEIR. The 2005 Supplemental EIR found three supplemental air quality impacts, as
follows:
Supplemental Impact SM-AQ-1 identified supplemental impacts with respect to
construction related air quality impacts and that the overall development
envelope associated with the Fallon Village project was larger than analyzed in
previous CEQA documents. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation SM-AQ-1
requires more stringent measures to be undertaken by individual developers in
the Fallon Village area to reduce construction air quality impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Supplemental Impacts SM-AQ-2 and SM-AQ-3 found that regional air emissions
associated with vehicle trips in the overall Fallon Village project area would
exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors. The SEIR
included Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 to reduce these impacts,
however, the items included in this Supplemental Mitigation Measure would not
reduce regional emissions below BAAQMD standards and these impacts
remained significant and unavoidable.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous CEQA documents.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 /E regarding increased
stationary source air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that
would remain significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.11/12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development
in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay
Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and
unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts.
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is
predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on
ABAG's Projections '09, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency
general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed Project would
be consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would contain
approximately 284 fewer residential units than currently approved. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously analyzed in
the prior EIRs.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? No New Impact.
Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11/0.
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction
of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
This conclusion was reiterated in both the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents.
Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for
construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air
pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the
construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction
phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to
adhere to these requirements. Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0
has been supplemented with 2005 SEIR Mitigation MeasureSM-AQ-1 to ensure
that current BAAQMD construction air quality impacts are reduced to a less-
than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact.
See item "b."
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? No New Impact The proposed Project would include primarily a residential
development with a small non-residential (approximately 12,000 square foot)
component that would be retail use as part of a mixed-use development. This type
of use and its limited size, unlike manufacturing, industrial or similar land uses,
does not generate significant pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors.
Therefore, significant impacts on adjacent sensitive residence uses would not
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
result. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior
EIRs.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
Much of the Environmental Setting section for the Jordan Ranch property is based on a
document entitled "Biological Assessment for the Jordan Ranch Development Project"
dated October 2009 authored by Olberding Environmental, Inc. This document
confirms the biological conditions on the Project site previously described in the prior
EIRs. It also contains the proposed plan for implementing the mitigations measures
required in the prior EIRs. This document is hereby incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development
Department during normal business hours.
Plant communities
Seven habitat types have been identified on the Jordan Ranch site. These include:
Annual grasslands. Annual grasslands consist of grass and forb species such a wild
oat, soft chess, ripgut brome, thistle and similar species. Much of the property is
characterized by this species type.
Wetlands. A number of seasonal and perennial wetlands, seeps and others waters are
present on the Project site. Perennial wetlands were found in the southwestern
corner of the site, at the confluence of a number of drainage swales. Seasonal
wetlands were primarily found within drainage swales as well as a number of
seasonal ponds on the site.
Wetland drainage Swale. A number of major northeast-southwest trending drainage
swales are present on the site. Vegetation types in the swale areas include grasses
and forbs, such as rabbits foot grass, Italian rye grasses, spike rush, curley dock and
creeping wild rye. Three patches of Congdon's Tarplant have also been observed in
the swale areas.
Riparian. Riparian habitat was observed in the southwestern corner of the site at the
confluence of three swales. A number of willow trees form a dense to moderately
dense canopy over the lower reaches of the swale area.
Stock pond/ornamental pond. Three stock ponds are found on the site within the
drainage swales. A 0.29-acre pond is the largest of the ponds found on the site and is
located adjacent to the former homestead, since removed. The pond is surrounded
riparian vegetation, such as cattails, common rush and fiddle dock.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Alkali meadow. Alkali meadow habitat is located at the northern portion of the site in
association with the wetland drainage swales, Vegetation in this habitat includes salt
grass, common tarweed, Mediterranean barley and similar vegetative types.
Developedllandscaped. The portion of the Project site formerly occupied by the
residence and associated outbuildings is characterized by non-native ornamental
landscaping, such as eucalyptus trees, juniper and similar material.
Special-status species and habitats
The three previous EIRs which include the surrounding Fallon Village Project and
Eastern Dublin area, identify a wide range of special-status plant and wildlife species.
These are identified in Section 3.7 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Section 3.3 of the 2002
Supplemental EIR and Section 4.7 of the 2005 Supplemental EIR.
A more recent biological resource analysis has been prepared for the Jordan Ranch
property by Olberding Environmental, Inc. in October 2009. This report is incorporated
by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours. The 2009 Olberding report
identified the presence of wetlands and waters of the State of California on the site. One
special-status plant species was found on the site: Congdon's tarplant. Drainages and
stock ponds on the site provide suitable breeding and forging habitat for California
Red-Legged Frog (CRLF) species and such species have been identified on the site.
Stock ponds also provide suitable breeding habitat for the western pond turtle,
although such species were not found.
Annual grassland habitat on the site provides suitable habitat for a variety protected
bird/ raptor species, including golden eagle, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk,
northern harrier, while-tailed kite and Long-billed Curlew.
Previous EIRs
The regulatory framework for this Project includes previous EIRs and regulations for
protection of biological resources.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/13) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard, as well as
other protected species.
The proposed Project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
2002 Supplement. This EIR identified a large number of supplemental biological
mitigation measures for the entire Fallon Village project area, identified as
Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-13I0-1 through SM-BIO-45. The supplemental
mitigation measures require completion of rare plant and wildlife surveys, preparation
of a Resource Management Plan (RMP), avoid or replace wetlands.
2005 Supplement. This Supplement identifies additional supplemental impacts and
mitigation measures, as listed below. A number of the supplemental mitigation
measures are revisions to mitigation measures contained in earlier EIRs. Supplemental
mitigation measures are:
Mitigation Measure SM-13I0-1 requires the restoration or enhancement of
riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (on an acreage basis), preferably within the
proposed aquatic and buffer zone or corridor zone management areas on-site. If
mitigation within the Project area is not feasible, then the developer shall
mitigate impacts to central coast riparian scrub through the restoration or
enhancement of riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio (measured by acreage) at an off-site
location acceptable to the City.
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 requires that if avoidance is infeasible, then
mitigation lands providing similar or better habitat for CRLF shall be preserved
and protected in perpetuity.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 requires individual developers of parcels to create
and/or enlarge suitable breeding ponds at a 2:1 ratio, in or adjacent to areas
currently supporting CTS and with sufficient surrounding upland habitat to
provide a high likelihood of establishment and persistence of a breeding
population.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 requires developers of individual parcels to
acquire, preserve, and manage suitable upland habitat at a 1:1 ratio in or adjacent
to areas currently supporting CTS and within 2200 feet of a suitable breeding
pond.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-1 (revised) requires special steps to be taken by
individual developers if special-status plants cannot be avoided during project
construction.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 (revised) requires that during the breeding season
(February 1-August 31) prior to submittal of Stage 2 development proposals for a
particular parcel, or during a subsequent breeding season but prior to the
initiation of construction, a survey shall be conducted according to CDFG
protocols to determine whether Burrowing Owls are present, and if present, the
number of nesting pairs of Burrowing Owls present on the parcel.
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 (revised) requires pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owls be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any ground
disturbance between September 1 and January 31.
Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 (revised) requires that if construction is scheduled
during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1- August 31), pre-
construction surveys should be conducted on the entire site-specific Project area
and within 500 feet of such Project area prior to any ground disturbance. A
minimum buffer (at least 250 feet) shall be maintained during the breeding
season around active burrowing owl nesting.
• Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-5 (revised) requires that if destruction of occupied
(breeding or non-breeding season) burrowing owl burrows, or any burrows that
were found to be occupied during pre-construction surveys, is unavoidable, a
strategy will be developed to replace such burrows by enhancing existing
burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous EIRs and the Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration
Program.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Resource Management Plan (RMP). Consultants working for the City of Dublin completed
a Resource Management Plan in 2004. Completion of the RMP was required as a result
of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-13I0-1 contained in the 2002 Supplemental
EIR. The RMP evaluated potential impacts to sensitive biological resources on the
Eastern Dublin Property Owners' area, an approximately 1120-acre area that was
analyzed in both the 2002 and 2005 Supplemental EIRs. The RMP includes a
comprehensive analysis of sensitive plant and wildlife species within the area, potential
habitat for such species and the presence of wetlands and other waters. The RMP also
includes a constraints analysis to guide future development of properties included in
the RMP study area.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant
species, seventeen special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species,
and ten special status invertebrate species which could potentially occur within
the entire Eastern Dublin planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21.)
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, new special status species have been
addressed in the 2002 and 2005 SEIR documents. No new species have been
identified on the Project site as part of this Initial Study and no supplemental
impacts would result.
As identified in the previous EIRs and the most recent Olberding Report and
WRA peer review letter (Appendix 1), approval and implementation of the
proposed Project could impact individual species and habitats for Contra Costa
Goldfields, a federally listed endangered plant species, California Tiger
Salamander, California red-legged frog, Western pond turtle, Burrowing owl,
Great Homed owl, Red-Shouldered hawk, ferruginous hawk, American Kestrel,
loggerhead shrike and American badger.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status
species (Policies 6-17 and 6-20). The proposed development Project will adhere to
the Specific Plan policies and all previously adopted mitigation measures, as
applicable.
As recommended in the WRA peer review letter, no additional preconstruction
surveys for California Tiger Salamander and California Red-Legged Frog are
needed since presence of these species on the site have been confirmed.
However, as a condition of approval which implements the mitigation measures
in the prior EIRs for protection of special status species and the applicant agrees
to, the WRA report recommends a pre-construction survey for Lawrence's
Goldfinch, a USFWS bird species of special concern.
As identified in previous EIRs for the Eastern Dublin area, impacts associated
with loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats on a Project and
cumulative level (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.7/C, and 2002 SEIR Impact BIO 3)
will remain Significant and Unavoidable for this Project as well. There would
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
No New Impact. The 2005 SEIR and RMP identify ponds and wetland area on
the Jordan Ranch property. Implementation of the proposed Project would
impact these wetland areas, associated riparian habitat and special-status species
within and adjacent to these wetland areas.
Consistent with adopted Mitigation Measures in previous CEQA documents, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Project applicant will provide a combination of
preserved on-site wetlands and suitable replacement wetland habitat and
foraging area off of the Project site. The Project applicant will also obtain
necessary federal, state and local permits in order to undertake this mitigation
plan. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
prior EIRs.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. The
existing major drainage northeast-southwest trending drainage swale on the
Project site would remain and be enhanced to ensure that existing movement of
wildlife species would not be blocked. This would be a less-than-significant
impact. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New
Impact. The Project Property contains a number of trees that would be removed
when the property is graded. Prior to commencement of grading activities, the
Project applicant will adhere to the City of Dublin Heritage Tree Ordinance and
replace heritage trees lost at a ratio consistent with the City's Heritage Tree
Ordinance. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the two Supplemental EIRs contain a comprehensive
listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the
overall Eastern Dublin area. No structures on the Jordan property are identified as
historic sites in the Eastern Dublin EIR (reference Chapter 3.9, Cultural Resources).
The Jordan Ranch site does not contain any structures, so that no above ground historic
resources are present on the site.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
As required by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-3 contained in the 2005
SEIR, a site-specific cultural resources assessment was prepared by the firm of Basin
Research Associates dated June 9, 2009. The Basin Report is incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Development Services
Department during normal business hours.
The Basin Report summarized comprehensive research on Site CA-Ala-508H on the
Project site, including a field visit and subsurface testing using a backhoe. The Report
found a less-than-significant quantity of subsurface cultural material at this identified
site. Previous archeological materials reported in the 2005 SEIR on the Jordan Ranch site
were not found. The one artifact found (a slab metate) was likely a former surface
artifact that was buried through natural or mechanical means. The Basin Report did not
recommend additional testing, however, the following recommendations should be
included as conditions of Project approval which implements the mitigation measures
in the prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources and the applicant agrees to:
a) Spot monitoring of construction excavations shall be undertaken during site
clearing and excavations of up to five feet in depth. The monitoring program
shall be at the discretion of the Project archeologist.
b) Project grading specifications shall include warning language to alert the
contractor as to the potential for buried cultural resources.
c) A minimum of one meeting shall be held between the Project archeologist and
grading contractors for a briefing on procedures to be followed in the event of
discovering a cultural artifact.
d) If any cultural artifacts are exposed or discovered during site clearing or grading,
operations shall cease within a 30-foot radius of the find and the Project
archeologist consulted for evaluation and further recommendations. Possible
recommendations could include further evaluation, collection, recordation and
analysis of such find, followed by completion of a professional report.
e) Treatment of any Native American burials found during construction shall be in
accordance with the requirements of the State of California Public Resources
Code, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission.
Previous EIRs.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. Mitigation
measure applicable to this Project include:
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result
of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources. These measures
require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden
deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of such resources on
State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a
protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA.
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.913) to a less-than-
significant level.
The 2002 Supplemental EIR sets forth no new cultural resource impacts or mitigation
measures.
The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified Supplemental Impact CUL-3 regarding cultural
resource site C-ALA-508H on the Jordan site. Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-
CUL-3 requires a detailed cultural resources assessment for the identified cultural site
prior to the approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan on the Jordan Ranch. The
assessment shall determine of the cultural site is eligible for listing on the California
Register of Historical Resources and any recommendations made in the cultural
resources assessment shall be incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan as
conditions of approval. This assessment has been performed by Basin Research
Associates as described above.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource
mitigation measures contained in previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No
historic resources exist on the Jordan Ranch based on a historic resources survey
conducted as part of the Eastern Dublin EIR, so there would no impacts with
regard to historic resources on the site that have not been analyzed in previous
EIRs. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
prior EIRs.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin
EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction
activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover
significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) require
subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site
disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a
protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Appendix
K of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described
above, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 9/B, the potential
disruption of any previously unidentified prehistoric resources and would
apply to the Project as may be appropriate.
The Basin Report completed for the proposed Project did not identify the
presence of significant archeological resources on the Project site, although a
number of recommendations are included in the Report (listed above) that will
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
made conditions of Project approval which implement the mitigation measures
in the prior EIRs for protection of cultural resources and the applicant agrees to.
No new or substantially more severe impacts with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts have been identified than were previously analyzed in
the prior EIRs.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No
New Impact. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human
resources could be uncovered on the Jordan Ranch during grading and
construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the
potential for impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a
separate CEQA checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed
human remains, which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the Project pursuant to Mitigation
Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. However, this potential impact was analyzed as part
of the 2005 SEIR and addressed by Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-CUL-1.
Recommendation of Item "e" of the Basin Report, above, also applies to the
potential discovery of Native American resources.
No new or more substantially severe impacts are anticipated with regard to
disturbance of human remains than have been previously identified and no new
mitigation measures are required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the
Eastern Dublin EIR and reviewed in the Initial Study for the 2002 SEIR. As a
result of the 2002 review, it was determined that soils, geologic and seismic
conditions did not present any new potentially significant impacts when
compared with the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore not reassessed in detail in
the 2002 SEIR.
No new or more severe soil or geotechnical impacts were identified on the
Jordan Ranch site in the 2005 SEIR.
Topography on the Jordan Project site is characterized by low to moderately
sloping hills that are divided by three drainage swales. Swales trend from
northeast to southwest with a generally flatter area in the southwest corner of the
site which formerly housed a farmstead complex, since removed.
Previous EIRs
City o -Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General
Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-8.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/Q to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6 /1) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal/ reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associated
cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
2005 Supplemental EIR. The 2005 SEIR included one additional mitigation measure.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure GEO-1 deals with grading of steeper slopes on
properties north of the Jordan Ranch and does not apply to this Project.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and
seismic mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or
landslides? No New Impact. Although the Project is not located within an
Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR
identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts
3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation
of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced
to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to
lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure
failure, major structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground shaking on
proposed project improvements to a less-than-significant level.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0 through 3.6/26.0 by the Project
developer will ensure that effects of landsliding and ground failure on proposed
Project improvements will be less-than-significant.
There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant
impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the
prior EIRs.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact.
Construction of the proposed project improvements on the Jordan Ranch would
modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and
infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and
sedimentation caused by grading activities (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impact
3.6 / K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface
and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/Q. The
Project applicant will be required, as a standard condition of Project approval by
the City of Dublin, to prepare and implement an erosion control plan, consistent
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
with City of Dublin and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
an erosion control plan, impacts related to substantial erosion and loss of topsoil
would be less-than-significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Portions of the Project
site are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the
potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.6/1-1). With adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, potential shrink-swell impacts would be less-than-significant.
Consistent with applicable mitigation measures, the Project developer has
retained a qualified soils and geotechnical consultant to prepare a site-specific
analysis of the Project site. Recommendations included in the Project soils report
will be reviewed by the City of Dublin Public Works Department and will be
included in grading and constructions plans and specifications to comply with
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and EDSP policies regarding soil
hazards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No
New Impact. Proposed residences on the Project site would be connected to
sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard
to septic systems. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Setting
The 2005 SEIR, prepared for the Fallon Village Project area of which the Jordan Ranch
Property site is a component, identified a number of Supplemental Impacts and
Supplemental Mitigation Measures for individual properties included in the Fallon
Village project area.
Supplemental Impact HAZ-2 identified the possibility of soil and/or groundwater
contamination and the exposure of individuals from release of such materials, including
portions of the Jordan Property. Supplemental Mitigation Measure HAZ-3b requires
remediation of contamination on a number of sites within the Fallon Village area,
including the Jordan Ranch. In addition, Supplemental Mitigation Measure 3b requires
the Jordan Ranch owner to inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Services
Department of an unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (diesel and gasoline) in the
vicinity of a removed underground storage tank on the property. Additional subsurface
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
investigation was then required to identify the extent of possible contamination and to
evaluate the potential for groundwater contamination. Also, the supplemental
mitigation measure required completion of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment to
determine if any soil or groundwater contamination exists near former barn structures..
A Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessment has been prepared for the Jordan Ranch
by the firm of ATC Associates, Inc., dated June 9, 2008. The report is hereby
incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and the report is available for review at
the Dublin Development Services Department during normal business hours.
Previous EIRs
The 2005 SEIR contains the following supplemental mitigation measures related to
hazards and hazardous materials.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-1 requires preparation of site-specific analysis
to determine the presence of lead based paint and/or asbestos in structures to be
demolished in the Fallon Village area.
Supplemental Mitigation HAZ-2 requires the removal of identified hazardous
conditions on sites in the Fallon Village area prior to future development on
properties.
Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3b requires remediation of contaminated
areas of the Jordan Ranch property. In addition, the Jordan Ranch owner shall
inform the Alameda County Environmental Health Department of an
unauthorized release of fuel hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel) in the vicinity of
an underground storage tank that had been previously removed. Additional
subsurface investigations are required to determine the lateral and horizontal
extent of any potential contamination and, if found, is required to be removed as
directed by the Alameda County Environmental Health Department. The
additional investigations were also required to determine the extent of
contamination caused by diesel fuel storage drums, weed killer and other
contaminants in former barn structures on the Jordan site.
• Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3f requires abandonment and destruction of
any private wells on the site.
• Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ-3g requires septic systems and leach fields
within the Fallon Village project area to be pumped out and removed under
permits from the Alameda County Environmental Health Department.
Potential hazard and hazardous material impacts were not analyzed in either the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2002 SEIR.
The proposed Project on the Jordan Ranch Property will be required to adhere to the
above mitigation measures.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Project ImRacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact
with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project involves construction of a primarily residential development on
the Jordan Ranch Property. There would be no use, storage or transport of
significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed
development. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? No New Impact. The 2005 SEIR and supplemental environmental site
investigations identified the presence of contaminated soils and groundwater on
the site as a result of previous agricultural operations on the site. To comply with
2005 Supplemental Mitigation Measures, the Project Applicant has completed a
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment and has contacted the Alameda
County Environmental Health Department. Supplemental Mitigation SM-HAZ 3b
requires remediation of identified contaminated areas. In order to implement this
Mitigation Measure, a condition of Project approval will require the Applicant to
complete implementation of remediation of contaminants on the site and secure a
closure letter from the Alameda County Environmental Health Department or
equivalent agency with jurisdiction prior to commencement of grading activities.
This impact would therefore be less-than-significant and no new or substantially
more severe impacts with respect to release of hazardous materials have been
identified in this Initial Study than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New
Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would have a less-
than-significant impact with respect to this topic. A school site is shown on the
Exhibit 3, the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan. However, the remainder of the
Project site would be remediated for soil and groundwater contamination prior to
the development of the future school facility. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties
comprising the Project area are listed on the State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of April 15, 2010. There
is therefore no impact with regard to this topic. There would therefore be no new
or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than
has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No
New Impact. The Project site is located north of the Livermore Airport and outside
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
of any airport safety zone and the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the airport.
However, the Project site does lie within the airport height referral area of the
airport, as documented on Figure 3.1-D. Pursuant to Supplemental Noise
Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR, Jordan Ranch Project
developers will be required to provide notification to future purchases of
dwellings about the presence of Livermore Airport. Adherence to this
supplemental measure reduced impacts related to the Livermore Airport to a less-
than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed
Project would include the construction of a primarily residential development on
private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways
would be blocked. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The
Project site is located in a portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area with
undeveloped properties to the south and east of the site. However, this impact was
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and, with adherence to mitigation measures
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, impacts related to wildland fire would be
less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include Mitigation Measure
3.4/6.0, requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire stations and
other facilities in Eastern Dublin, Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0 requiring use of non-
combustible roof materials, and maintaining water fire flow and pressure,
establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and installing
fire sprinklers in buildings. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water
The Project site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, a sub-basin of the
Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the
Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near
Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City.
The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
City of Dublin rage w
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Surface water quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the
discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San
Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990
expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges
from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that
disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of
the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local
governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay.
In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment
Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that
define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant
control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities,
and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities.
Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the
implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with
stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged
into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a
series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control;
and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin
Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes.
Surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from existing
structures, parking areas and open space uses on the project area, including but not
limited to petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides,
pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooding
The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency FEMA (Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel
# 06001CO328G and 06001C0329G).
More detailed information on hydrology and surface water quality for the Fallon
Village area (that includes the Jordan Ranch) is contained in Chapter 4.4 of the 2005
SEIR.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
City of Dublin rage bZ
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 would reduce impacts related potential
flooding due to increased runoff into creeks (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant
level. These mitigation measures requires new storm drainage facilities as part of
new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for
individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to
alleviate downstream flooding potential.
Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 51.0 - 55.0 would reduce impacts related to non-point
source pollution (IM 3.5 / AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part
of development projects and that the City should develop community-based
programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source
pollution.
2005 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR identified two Supplemental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures related to hydrology and water quality:
Supplemental Impact SD-1 found that surface water quality standards had been
updated from regulations in effect when the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was
certified. Mitigation Measure SD-1 requires that properties in the Stage 1
Development Plan adhere to water quality source control and hydrologic design
recommendations contained in the February 2005 ENGEO report. These
recommendations relate to limiting the volume and quantity of stormwater
runoff entering local and regional drainage facilities.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SD-2 requires that individual development
projects in the Fallon Village area comply with hydromodification provisions
contained in the Alameda County Clean Water Program. If no Alameda County
Clean Water Program permit has been approved before individual development
proposals are approved by the City of Dublin, applicants may be required to
submit hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to be reviewed and approved by the
City of Dublin and Zone 7. Payment of Zone 7 fees is also required.
The issue of hydrology was not assessed in the 2002 SEIR.
The proposed Project on the Jordan Ranch Property will be required to adhere to the
above mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact.
Adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005
SEIR and the Alameda County Clean Water Program as enforced by the City of
Dublin will ensure that the proposed Project would not violate water quality
standards or any waste discharge requirements. The Project developer proposes to
construct a water quality basin in the southwestern portion of the site to intercept
storm water and cleanse contaminants and erosion from runoff prior to entering
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
the G-3 facility. The water quality basin would be constructed to City of Dublin,
Zone 7 and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and specifications.
A final water quality plan will be approved for this Project by the City prior to
commencement of any grading or construction, whichever occurs first. There
would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New
Impact. The Project site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, and not for open
spaces or water recharge purposes. Similarly, proposed residential uses on the
Project Site would rely on imported water sources provided by Zone 7 and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District, not locally pumped groundwater. No
supplemental impacts would therefore occur with regard to this topic. As
identified in Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/49.0, and as identified in
subsection "a," above, the Project will include features to minimize surface and
groundwater pollution, consistent with Alameda County Clean Water Program
and City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would
be added to the Project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways
and similar surfaces. Although the existing main drainage swale would be used for
primary Project drainage, existing drainage patterns would be slightly modified
based on proposed development to channelize existing sheet flow into the main
swale and then transported to Zone Ts G-3 box culvert just west of Fallon Road
and north of the I-580 freeway.
As identified in subsection "a," a water quality basin would be constructed on the
site to minimize impacts related to siltation and erosion, consistent with the
Alameda County Clean Water Program.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-significant level. This
mitigation measure requires the Project developer to prepare a Master Drainage
Plan for the proposed Project prior to commencement of construction.
Adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the
2005 SEIR will reduce impacts from developments such as the proposed Project
related to siltation and erosion to a less-than-significant level.
There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts
with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that
would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. The Eastern
Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR identified a number of mitigation measures to which the
proposed Project must conform to reduce drainage and flooding impacts to a less-
than-significant level. These include preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for the
Project, as required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5 /46.0 and Project
developer contributions to funding regional drainage improvements, as required
by Mitigation Measures 3.5/47.0 and 48.0. Payment of local and regional drainage
fees to the City of Dublin and Zone 7 will meet the requirements of these
mitigation measures. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. The ability of downstream
drainage facilities to accommodate additional quantities of stormwater runoff from
the Project site have been addressed in previous EIRs and the proposed Jordan
development Project will comply with applicable mitigation measures to ensure
that drainage impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Consistent
with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.5/46.0, the Project developer's civil
engineer is required to prepare a Master Plan of Drainage to accommodate
increased Project stormwater runoff. And consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures 2.6/47.0 and 48.0, the Project developer will be required to
pay regional drainage fees to assist in funding backbone drainage facilities
identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This is a less-than-significant
issue and has been addressed above in item "a."
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? No New Impact. The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone
as mapped by FEMA. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this
Initial Study. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The Project Site
is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be
impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR as identified in subsection 6 of this Initial Study (Geology
and Soils) will ensure that impacts from mudflows would be less-than-significant.
These measures include Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measure 3.6/20.0, that requires
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
grading plans that minimize areas to be graded, Mitigation Measure 3.6/22.0,
requiring completion of site specific geotechnnical investigations and installation
of retaining structures and Mitigation Measure 3.6/23.0, requiring placements of
subsurface keys and benches to stabilize graded slopes. There would therefore be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settine
Existing land uses
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no buildings. The site is used for cattle
grazing.
Regulatory setting
Land use on the Project site is regulated by the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), both of which were adopted in 1993. The General Plan and
EDSP presently designate the Project site for a combination of Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential, Medium-High Density Residential, Neighborhood
Commercial, Community Park, Neighborhood Park, Neighborhood Square, Open
Space, Semi-Public and an Elementary School site.
The applicant has requested City of Dublin approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan for
the Project site as well as a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting
Subdivision Map to implement the current General Plan, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and approved Stage 1 Planned Development Plan land use designations. Approval of
the requested land use entitlements would provide for a reduction in the amount of
development on the site of approximately 284 dwellings.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The Project site
is vacant. Development of dwellings and other land uses on the site as proposed
in the Stage 2 Development Plan would not divide any established communities
on the site and no impact would result. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact.
Proposed land uses are fully consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The applicant will be required to comply with all
other land use policies and regulations as a condition of Project approval. No
impact would result. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No
New Impact. The Project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area
or natural community conservation plan area. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
No significant quantities of mineral resources exist on the Project site according to the
Eastern Dublin General Plan, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR or any of the Supplemental EIRs that affect the Project site.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No
New Impact. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or
applicable EIRs indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the Project
site, so no impacts would occur.
11. Noise
Environmental Setting
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. It is commonly measured with an instrument
called a sound level meter. The sound level meter captures the sound with a
microphone and converts it into a number called a sound level. Sound levels are
expressed in units of decibels. To correlate the microphone signal to a level that
corresponds to the way humans perceive noise, the A-weighting filter is used.
A-weighting de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner
similar to human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local General
Plans as well as federal and state noise regulations (e.g. Caltrans, EPA, OSHA and
HUD). The abbreviation dBA is sometimes used when the A-weighted sound level is
reported.
Because of the time-varying nature of environmental sound, there are many descriptors
that are used to quantify the sound level. Although one individual descriptor alone
does not fully describe a particular noise environment, taken together, they can more
accurately represent the noise environment. The maximum instantaneous noise level
(Lmax) is often used to identify the loudness of a single event such as a car passby or
airplane flyover. To express the average noise level the Leq (equivalent noise level) is
used. The Leq can be measured over any length of time but is typically reported for
periods of 15 minutes to 1 hour. The background noise level (or residual noise level) is
the sound level during the quietest moments. It is usually generated by steady sources
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
such as distant freeway traffic. It can be quantified with a descriptor called the L90
which is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time.
To quantify the noise level over a 24-hour period, the Day/ Night Average Sound Level
(DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is used. These descriptors
are averages like the Leq except they include a 10 dB penalty during nighttime hours
(and a 5 dB penalty during evening hours in the CNEL) to account for peoples
increased sensitivity during these hours. The CNEL and Ldn are typically less that one
decibel from each other.
In environmental noise, a change in noise level of 3 dB is considered a just noticeable
difference. A 5 dB change is clearly noticeable, but not dramatic. A 10 dB change is
perceived as a halving or doubling in loudness.
The major noise sources that affect the Project site are vehicular traffic on Interstate 580
and aircraft overflights. Existing terrain between the site and Interstate 580 affords some
acoustical shielding of parcels, particularly those along the future Central Parkway, east
of Fallon Road. Livermore Municipal Airport is to the southeast and flights from the
Airport pass directly over the site.
As required by existing mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents, a
site-specific acoustic analysis was prepared for this application by the firm of Rosen,
Goldberg, Der & Lewitz dated April 29, 2010. This report is hereby incorporated by
reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours.
Noise measurements were made on and around the Project site to quantify the existing
noise environment. These included three continuous 48-hour noise measurement and
two short-term, one-hour measurements. The noise measurement locations are shown
on Exhibit 4.
The short-term measurement results were correlated with simultaneous measurements
at the long-term monitoring location to determine the Ldn at the short-term
measurement locations. Table 6 shows the results of the short-term measurements.
A total of 181 airplanes flew over or near the site during the two-day measurements.
There was an average of 91 airplanes per day. The number of planes includes only those
flyovers that generated an Lmax of at least 60 dBA at Location B, since airplanes with
noise levels below this threshold are difficult to accurately identify. The typical Lmax of
the louder airplanes (top 30%) was about 71 dBA. The loudest airplane generated an
Lmax of 80 dBA.
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 6. Short-Term Noise Measurement Results
A-Weighted Noise Level, dBA
Location Date/Time
L,q Lmax I110 L50 L90 CNEL'
Fallon Road at setback
of proposed residential
1 lot, 80 feet from center 6-Apr-10 60 75 63 54 45 62
of roadway, 20 feet 14:15 -14:30
above pavement
elevation
Positano Parkway at
setback proposed
2 residential lot, 51 feet 6-Apr-10 49 65 52 43 40 56
from center of 14:45 -15:00
roadway, 9 feet above
pavement elevation
"Estimate of CNEL based on comparison of short-term measuremerns wan resuns ui luny-ienii
measurements.
Source: Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, 2010
The 1993 EIR addresses aircraft noise from Livermore Municipal Airport. Aircraft
noise is identified as an insignificant impact in this document (IM 3.10/C). The 2002
SEIR included a discussion of any changes in the noise environment during the ten
years between documents. The 2002 SEIR references the Eastern Dublin EIR for aircraft
noise and therefore still considered aircraft flyover noise to be an insignificant impact.
The 2005 SEIR, found aircraft noise to be a less than significant impact after
implementation of Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1, which implements
AB 2776 requirements within the AIA (the Project Site is within the AIA) will need to
have full disclosure regarding the presence of flyovers.
Regulatory setting
The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources
of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the
community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type.
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Table 7. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acceptable Conditionally
Acceptable Normally
Unacceptable Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools, churches,
nursing homes 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Neighborhood
arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of
proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant
level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have
an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City
noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to
construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans
and to limit hours of construction operations.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 Supplement contains two supplemental mitigation measures
dealing with noise impacts, as follows:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires a noise insulation plan
for general commercial and industrial land uses for specific development
projects located within a 70 decibel noise contour.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 limits heavy truck traffic to
designated arterial roads and truck routes in the Fallon Village area.
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
The 2002 SEIR found that exposure of proposed and existing housing to noise levels in
excess of City standards established in the Noise Element was a significant and
unavoidable impact.
2005 SEIR. The SEIR prepared in 2005 contains the following supplemental noise
mitigation measures:
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-1 requires that residents of
residential developments in the Fallon Village area receive written notification of
aircraft overflights from Livermore Airport
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2 requires an acoustical study
must be prepared for future residential projects in the Fallon Village area.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures contained in the previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in a substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels ? No New Impact. Future traffic noise
levels would be CNEL 71 dBA at the backyards of proposed single-family homes
along Fallon Road, and 65 dBA at the backyards of the homes along Positano
Parkway in Neighborhood 1 (see Exhibit 3).
As recommended in the Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz report prepared in
accordance with Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-NOISE-2, a
minimum six-foot tall noise barrier shall be constructed along the western
side of the Project adjacent to Fallon Road and Positano Parkway to reduce
anticipated traffic noise to acceptable City standards. The exact height and
location of the barrier shall be determined by a follow-on site-specific
acoustical study to be performed when Neighborhood 1 is developed.
The Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz study also recommends completion of site
specific acoustical studies for each Neighborhood as the site plans are being
refined and building architectural drawings are available. The site specific
acoustical studies shall identify any required specific noise control measures
(noise barriers and building acoustical treatments) to be incorporated into each
Neighborhood's final design.
Based on information included in the Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz acoustic
study, there would be no new or substantially more severe noise impacts with
respect to generation of noise in excess of City standards than have been
previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No
New Impact. According to the Project applicant, normal construction methods
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
would be used to build the proposed Project so there would be limited and less-
than-significant generation of groundborne noise or vibration. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? No New Impact. The proposed Project is required to
adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin
EIR to minimize the impacts of construction noise, including Mitigation Measure
3.10/4.0 and Mitigation Measure 3.10/5.0, to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level. No new or more substantially severe impacts with respect to
construction noise have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the Project site.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? No New Impact. The Project site is located within the height
referral area of the Livermore Airport and adherence to Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-NOISE-1 contained in the 2005 SEIR will reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Exhibit 4 Noise Measurement Locations
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Settine
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no dwellings.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New
Impact. The Project site has been planned for a mix of residential and commercial
land uses, parks, open spaces and other land uses since adoption of the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin
EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5/T) related to providing
water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the site and
surrounding areas was slightly modified in 2002 and in 2005 as identified in the
Project Description section of this Initial Study. The current proposal would result
in construction of a decrease of 284 dwellings from existing City land use
approvals. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No
New Impact. The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact
would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site.
There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the Project Site:
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18, located
northwest of the Project area at 4800 Fallon Road.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
• Library Services: Alameda County Library service
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous EIRs
Applicable mitigation measures contained
police protection include:
in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to
cover up-front costs if capital fire improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations
on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention
into the requirements of development approval.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval,
that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in
place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/ open
space interface.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department
and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project
area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and
revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for
police protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project
approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect
traffic safety and crime prevention.
Public Services were not addressed in either the 2002 Supplemental EIR.
The topic of Community Services was analyzed in the 2005 SEIR and no supplemental
impacts were identified regarding this topic.
The proposed Development Plan on the Jordan Ranch is required to adhere to Eastern
Dublin mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project and construction
of a residential development on the Jordan Ranch Property would increase the
number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be
responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's
contract fire department. The proposed Project is required to adhere to mitigation
measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new
fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 7.0), so that impacts to
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of the
proposed Project would be less-than-significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the Project site will be
conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to
maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site
access and using fire retardant building materials. Proposed development on the
Site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire
Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0).
Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service
beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra,
Alameda County Fire Department, 4 /15 / 10).
b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be a less-
than-significant impact with regard to police protection, based on the following
mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation
Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in
funding new police facilities (Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0) incorporating Police
Department safety and security requirements into the proposed Project, including
but not limited to adequate locking devices, lighting and ensuring adequate
surveillance for structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0).
Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service beyond
that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Chief Nice, Dublin Police
Services, 4/27/10).
c) Schools? No New Impact. There would be a less-than-significant impact to school
service should the proposed Project be approved since payment of mandated
statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide
mitigation of educational impacts pursuant to CEQA. There would therefore be no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact.
Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin with a less-than-significant impact in regard to this topic. New public
facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There
would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e) Solid waste generation? No New Impact. See item 16 "e" and '%" below.
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
14. Recreation
Environmental Setting
No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities are
currently located on the Project site. The Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan designate a number of future park sites on the Jordan Ranch. These
include a 5.8-acre community park, a 2.7-acre neighborhood square and an 11-acre
community park.
The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the project area is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project area. A
major sports park is being developed just west of the Jordan Ranch site on the
northwest corner of Fallon Road and Central Parkway.
These parks will be constructed from a combination of City public facilities impact fees
and developer dedications of land at the time development on adjacent properties
occur.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a number of mitigation measures
related to parks and recreational facilities, as follows.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/20.0-28.0 calls for the acquisition and development of
new parks and other outdoor facilities in Eastern Dublin, requiring land
dedication and/or park in-lieu fees for new subdivisions and similar techniques
to provide for additional park and recreational features. Implementation of all of
the mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR would result in a
ratio of 6.7 acres of parkland per 1000 population in Eastern Dublin.
Mitigation Measures 3.4/29.0-31.0 requires that each new development in
Eastern Dublin provide a fair share of parks and open space facilities.
Development of a parks implementation plan was also called for, to identify and
prioritize parkland in Eastern Dublin. Finally, adoption of a park in-lieu fee
program was required as a mitigation measure to reduce this impact to a level of
insignificance. Consistent with these mitigations, the City requires residential
project developers to dedicate parkland at the time of subdivision approval and
pay Public Facility Fees (which includes park in-lieu fees) to fund both the
development of neighborhood and community park facilities as well as other
community facilities.
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Mitigation Measure 3.4/32.0 requires the establishment of a trail system with
connections to planned regional and subregional trails, which would reduce this
impact to an insignificant level.
• Mitigation Measures 3.4/33.0-36.0 call for use of natural stream corridors and
major ridgelines to create a comprehensive, integrated trail system that allows
safe and convenient pedestrian access, and required developers to dedicate
public access along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate trail and
staging areas.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR described a proposed action of that project to detach the
Project area from the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD) as part of
the larger reorganization that also included annexation of the Project area to the City of
Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. Under the reorganization proposal, the
City of Dublin would provide parks and recreation facilities and services to Project area
residents as part of the larger spectrum of municipal services. The reorganization was
approved by the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission in 2002 and
the Site now receives park and recreation facilities and services provided by the City of
Dublin.
No supplemental park and recreation impacts were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
The Project developers will be required to comply with all applicable mitigation
measures contained in the previous EIRs.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use
of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the site. However, the Project applicants are
required to comply with Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including
payment of City public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve
parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. This
would include future construction of the neighborhood square, neighborhood
park and community park on the Jordan site. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above Since proposed development on the
Jordan Ranch site property will be subject to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation
measures, impacts related to provision or construction of recreational facilities
would be less-than-significant. There would therefore be no new or substantially
more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
Existing roadways
The Project site is served by Fallon Road, a north-south arterial roadway in east Dublin,
as well as Central Parkway and Positano Parkway, both east-west collectors.
Fallon Road is a north-south two to four lane arterial extending from I-580 to about 2
miles north of I-580. It will be extended to connect to Tassajara Road to the north in the
future. As a part of on-going development in east Dublin, it will eventually be widened
to eight lanes south of Dublin Boulevard, six lanes between Dublin Boulevard and
Gleason Drive, and four lanes north of Gleason Drive.
Positano Parkway extends in an east-west arc from Fallon Road to the planned
extension of Croak Road northeast of the Project site. Positano Parkway is a two-lane
roadway that forms a portion of the Project's western boundary and provides primary
access to the Positano residential development, north of Jordan Ranch.
Central Parkway is a two-lane roadway extending from Arnold Road to Lockhart Street.
An extension between Lockhart Street and Fallon Road is planned for opening in 2010.
Central Parkway is planned for widening to four lanes in the future.
Interstate 580 (I-580) is an eight-lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with local
cities such as Livermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and destinations
such as Oakland, Hayward and Tracy. In the vicinity of the proposed Project, I-580
carries between 184,000 and 196,000 vehicles per day (vpd) (according to Caltrans 2003
Traffic Volumes on California State Highways) with interchanges at Dougherty
Road /Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road and Fallon
Road / El Charro Road. Phase 1 improvements to the I-580 / Fallon Road interchange
were completed in early 2010.
Existing transit service
Transit service to the Project area is provided by the following:
Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels). "Wheels" is the fixed-route
transit service provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Bus Lines that
currently provide service to east Dublin (Tassajara Road and east) include routes 1
(including 1A/1AV, 1B/1BV,1C, 1E), 12, 50, 54 and 202.
Route 1 consists of four weekday routes and one Saturday route that provide service
between the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and the Dublin Ranch area, including
Fallon Middle School, at approximately 30-minute headways. The routes operate on
weekdays between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 7:30 a.m. to 10:15
a.m. and from 3:20 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Route 12 provides service between the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and the
Livermore Transit Center at approximate 30-minute headways on weekdays between
5:30 a.m. and11:00 p.m. Route 12 provides service on weekends between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. at one hour headways.
Route 50 provides service between the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and Hacienda
Business Park via the Tassajara/Koll Center Park & Ride, with weekday morning and
afternoon service at 15-minute headways.
Route 54 provides service in the morning and afternoon matching ACE train arrivals
and departures, connecting between the Pleasanton ACE station and the
Dublin/Pleasanton BART station with intermediate stops, including the Tassajara/Koll
Center Park & Ride.
Route 202 provides one weekday morning (westbound) run and one weekday
afternoon (eastbound) run between Fallon Road and Dublin High School.
A new service, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), is slated to commence in early 2011. This new
route will provide express bus service between Livermore, the Dublin/ Pleasanton
BART station and Stoneridge Mall via Dublin Boulevard.
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. BART provides regional rail transit access from
the Dublin/ Pleasanton station. BART runs at 15- to 20-minute headways between 4:00
AM and 12:00 AM on weekdays. Saturday service is available every 20 minutes
between 6:00 AM and 12:45 AM. Service is also available on Sunday from 8:00 AM to
12:45 AM with 20-minute headways.
A new West Dublin-Pleasanton station is under construction and is expected to be
operational in 2011. In addition, long-range planning studies of potentially extending
BART lines to Livermore are being conducted. The studies also will examine alternative
means of improving transit service to Livermore in the BART corridor until funds are
available to construct the BART extension.
ACE Commuter Train. Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) offers an alternative to the
automobile for regional commute trips between the Central Valley and the South Bay
Area with stops in Livermore and Pleasanton. Because ACE primarily serves commute
trips to the Bay area, the trains run westbound in the morning and eastbound in the
evening. There is one ACE station in Pleasanton near the intersection of Bernal Avenue
and Pleasanton Avenue. Livermore has two ACE stations, one in Downtown near the
Livermore Avenue/ Railroad Avenue intersection and the other on Vasco Road, at the
Vasco Road/Brisa Street intersection. In the morning, westbound trains stop at
Pleasanton at approximately 5:40 a.m., 6:45 a.m. and 7:55 a.m. In the evening, eastbound
trains stop at Pleasanton at approximately 4:30 p.m., 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR includes the following mitigation measures
City of Dublin Page 80
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3.3/4.0) were adopted which reduced impacts
on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a
level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580 / 680 interchange. Even with
mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway
segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of
2010, on other segments of 1-580.
Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 6.0 - 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts
to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound
Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road/I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway
Boulevard/ Dublin Boulevard intersections and long El Charro Road to a level of
insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and
interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are
also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin traffic impact fee program and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road.
Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0 -15.3 and 16.0 -16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings.
2002 SEIR. The following mitigation measures were included in the 2002 SEIR.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-1 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening
the I-580/Hacienda Drive eastbound ramp to include an additional left turn
lane.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-2 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of widening
the northbound Hacienda Drive overcrossing from 3 to 4 lanes as well as
modifying the westbound loop on-ramp to meet Caltrans design standards.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-3 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of converting
the east bound I-580/Santa Rita to a shared left-turn/through lane.
City of Dublin rage ai
initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-4 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to install a signal at the Dublin
Boulevard/ Street D intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-5 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of installing a
traffic signal at the Fallon Road/ Project Road intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-6 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of
reconfiguring the Dublin Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-7 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to construct an additional through lane on
northbound Fallon Road, an additional left-turn lane and an additional through
lane on southbound Fallon Road.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-8 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to fund a feasibility study for possibly
relocating the Fallon Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection further north and
adding a new signalized intersection south of the relocated Fallon Road/Dublin
Boulevard intersection.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-9 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village to fund widening Fallon Road between the 1-580
freeway and Dublin Boulevard to eight lanes, for widening Fallon Road between
Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway to six lanes and for widening Fallon
Road between Central Parkway and Project Road to four lanes. The Fallon
Road/I-580 overcrossing shall also be widened to six lanes.
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRAFFIC-10 requires individual
developers in the Fallon Village area to widen Central Parkway between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road to four lanes.
2005 SEIR. The 2005 SEIR contained the following traffic and transportation mitigation
measures:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-1 requires individual project
developers in the Fallon Village area to advance construction of the Dougherty
Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection improvements or, if the City's Traffic
Impact Fee Program is updated in the future to fund these improvements, use of
traffic fees would mitigate this cumulative impact.
• Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-2 requires all project developers in
the Fallon Village area to fund the widening of the I-580 eastbound off ramp at
Santa Rita Road to accommodate additional peak hour cumulative traffic.
City of Dublin Page 82
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-TRA-3 requires project developers in the
Fallon Village area to contribute a pro-rata share of funding to widen the Central
Parkway/ Hacienda Drive intersection to accommodate anticipated cumulative
traffic. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the proposed
Project.
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
EIR, the 2002 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR shall apply to the proposed Project.
Some of the required improvements have already been completed, some are underway,
and some are planned for the future with funding provided through the Eastern Dublin
TIF Program
Project Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity?
No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the
Project site with a mix of Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density
Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Parks, Open Space, Semi-Public and an
Elementary School site and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts
thereof. Land uses on the Project site were subsequently amended to redesignate
the Site in the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR as noted in the Project
Description section of this Initial Study. If approved, the maximum number of
dwellings on the site would be reduced by approximately 284 dwellings from the
existing approved Project entitlement analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
Estimated trips from the Project under proposed land use designations are shown
on Table 8. As shown in the following table, buildout of land uses as proposed in
the Stage 2 Development Plan would result in a reduction of 3,710 total daily trips.
During the a.m. peak hour, there would be an estimated increase of 258 trips. In
the p.m. peak hour, there would be an estimated reduction of 358 trips. The
reported increase of traffic during the a.m. peak hour is due to the fact that the
2005 SEIR included the school site as part of the project description but did not
include school-generated traffic in the assessment of impacts. This exclusion does
not change the overall conclusions presented in the 2005 SEIR, as the majority of
school trips would remain internal to the development, or be part of another trip
destined outside the area. Furthermore, traffic conditions are generally worse
during the p.m. peak hour, so the expected reduction in p.m. peak hour trips with
the proposed Project will lessen previously stated impacts on the transportation
system.
The additional a.m. peak hour trips will not create any new significant impacts
under the CEQA standards of significance. However, in order to address certain
traffic operations issues, appropriate traffic control devices and lane
configurations for various intersections within the Project and immediately
adjacent to the Project have been identified and incorporated into the Project
through the Conditions of Approval.
City of Dublin Page 83
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
In reviewing buildout impacts of adding proposed Project traffic to intersections
near the Project site (see Table 4.2.7 of the 2005 SEIR), the addition of 258 a.m. and
a reduction of 358 p.m. peak hour trips to peak hour traffic at the intersections
listed in Table 4.2.7 of the 2005 SEIR would not result in any new significant
impacts.
Table 8. Jordan Ranch Project-Proposed and Previous Project Trips
D
il AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Project Component Size a
y
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Low Density Residential -
Neighborhood 1' 252 DU 2,410 47 142 189 160 95 255
Medium Density Residential
- Neighborhood 2' 111 DU 1,060 21 62 83 71 41 112
Medium Density Residential
- Neighborhood 3' 94 DU 900 18 53 71 60 35 95
Medium High Density
Residential' 218 DU 1,460 22 89 111 88 47 135
Village Commercial
Residential' 105 DU 710 11 43 54 42 23 65
Village Commercial - Retail' 9,982 SF 430 6 4 10 18 19 37
Village Commercial - Office' 5,100 SF 60 7 1 8 1 7 8
Elementary School'" stun 0 is 11240 255 209 464 37 39 76
Total Trips 8,270 387 603 990 477: 306 783
Trips Analyzed in EIR 11,980 198 534 732 679 462 1,141
Difference From EIR Analysis -3,710 189 69 258 -202 -156 -358
Notes:
1. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Single Family Home (Land Use 210):
Daily Rate: T = 9.57 (D)
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.75 (D) (inbound = 25%, outbound = 75%)
PM Peak Hour Rate: T = 1.01 (D) (inbound = 63%, outbound = 37%)
Where: T = trip ends, and D = Dwelling Units
2. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Apartments (Land Use 220):
Daily Rate: T = 6.72
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.51 (D) (inbound = 20%, outbound = 80%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T= 0.62 (D) + 17.65 (inbound = 65%, outbound = 35%)
Where: T = trip ends, and D = Dwelling Units
3. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Retail (Land Use 820):
Daily Rate: T = 42.94 (X)
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 1.03 (X) (inbound = 61 %, outbound = 39%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T= 3.75 (X) (inbound = 48%, outbound = 52%)
Where: T = trip ends, and X = 1,000 Square Feet
4. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Office (Land Use 710):
Daily Rate: T =11.01 (X)
City of Dublin Page 84
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 1.55 (X) (inbound = 88%, outbound = 12%)
PM Peak Hour Rate T= 1.49 (X) (inbound = 17%, outbound = 83%)
Where: T = trip ends, and X = 1,000 Square Feet
5. Based on information from other school districts, an estimated 0.30 elementary school students
would be generated per single-family home, and 0.05 elementary school students would be
generated per apartment unit. This results in approximately 45 elementary school students
residing in Jordan Ranch immediately adjacent to the school site (neighborhoods 2 - 6). The
number of students expected to come from neighborhoods 2 through 6 were subtracted from
the total number of students, as it is anticipated that these students would bicycle or walk to
school, or be dropped off by a parent on their way to work. The residential trip generation was
not reduced to account for student drop-off/pick-up, as it was assumed that this trip would be
part of another trip destined outside Jordan Ranch.
6. Trip generation based on ITE rates for Elementary School (Land Use 520):
Daily Rate: T = 2.45 (S)
AM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.92 (S) (inbound = 55%, outbound = 45%)
PM Peak Hour Rate: T= 0.15 (S) (inbound = 49%, outbound = 51 %)
Where: T = trip ends, and S = number of students
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 7th and 8th Editions, Jordan Ranch Stage ll Submittal - Site
Development Review, October 1, 2009, and Fehr & Peers, 2010.
The Eastern Dublin EIR found that buildout of the Eastern Dublin planning area
would result in a number of significant and unavoidable impacts. Such impacts
included additional vehicular trips to the I-580 and I-680 freeways (Impacts
3.3 / B and C), cumulative freeway impacts (Impact 3.3 / E), the addition of
vehicles to the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramps, Cumulative impacts on
Dublin Boulevard (Impact 3.3M) and cumulative impacts on Tassajara Road
(Impact 3.3/N). A Statement of Overriding Considerations was approved in
adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan by City Council Resolution No. 53-93.
The 2002 SEIR identified four significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, as
follows:
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-6 found that the Dublin
Boulevard/ Dougherty Road intersection would be significant and
unavoidable in the 2025 cumulative buildout conditions during the a.m.
and p.m. peak periods.
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-7 identified a significant and unavoidable
impact at the Hacienda Drive/ Dublin Boulevard intersection in the p.m.
peak hour during the 2025 cumulative buildout period.
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-8 found that increases in traffic volumes at
the Fallon Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection during the p.m. peak hour
in the Year 2025 cumulative buildout would be significant and
unavoidable.
• Supplemental Impact Traffic-11 found that freeway segments along both
the I-580 and I-680 freeways would operate at an unacceptable level of
service during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under cumulative
buildout conditions.
City of Dublin Page s5
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
The 2005 SEIR found two significant and unavoidable supplemental traffic
impacts. Supplemental Impact TRA-4 found a significant and unavoidable impact
with respect to cumulative impacts to local freeways and Supplemental Impact
TRA-5 found a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to consistency
with the Alameda County Congestion Management Plan.
Based on the foregoing, there will be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? No New Impact. The Alameda County 2009 Congestion
Management Program describes the City's obligation to conduct an analysis of
impacts on the Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS)-designated roadways
and transit systems if the proposed Project will generate 100 or more new p.m.
peak hour trips. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would
generate fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the previously approved Project, so
analysis of impacts on the MTS is not required.
The 2005 SEIR conducted a full traffic analysis of the impacts on LOS on local and
regional roadways of the Fallon Village Project, including the development of 1064
residential units and 83,635 non-residential square feet proposed for the Jordan
Ranch Property at that time. The traffic analysis was conducted in accordance
with regional agency standards. The current Jordan Ranch Project has 284 fewer
residential units than that previously analyzed. Based on the reduction of overall
vehicle trips for the current proposal compared to the one previously analyzed, no
new or substantially more severe impacts on roadway levels of service would
result from the proposed Project than previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed Project would have no
impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a primarily residential development
and related entitlements. There would be no new or substantially more severe
significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed
in the prior EIRs.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or an incompatible use? No New
Impact. Approval of the proposed Project and future development would add
new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where
none currently exist. The EDSP and the Dublin Municipal Code contain design
standards intended to assure that access to and from a development area, and
circulation within the area, will be safe and efficient. Since Project facilities will be
required to be constructed to these design standards, no significant impacts with
regard to creating design hazards or unsafe conditions are anticipated. There
would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 86
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. The proposed Project would
provide multiple points of entry from Fallon Road, Central Parkway, Positano
Parkway, and La Vina Street, which connects the Project site to the tract to the
north. No new or significantly more severe impacts are therefore anticipated with
respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in Project CEQA
documents.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? No New Impact. No impacts to parking requirements
are anticipated since the Project would exceed City parking requirements. Based
on information submitted with the application, the proposed 780 dwellings within
the Jordan Ranch would be required to provide 2,179 parking spaces, including
1,560 covered spaces for the dwellings plus 619 uncovered guest spaces. A total of
2,335 spaces are proposed, including some spaces on Project streets. This would
result in a surplus of 156 spaces and no new or substantially more severe
significant impact would occur than analyzed in previous CEQA documents for
the Project site.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No New Impact. The proposed
Project would include construction of sidewalks along public roads to facilitate
pedestrian access. Six-foot wide bicycle lanes are proposed along both sides of the
extension of Central Parkway. Bicyclists could use roads to access Fallon Road and
other roads, so that no significant impacts to this topic would result with respect to
this topic.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Settin
The Project area is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
• Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD.
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: A T & T.
Previous EIRs
Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
Cy Dln Page 87
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5 / Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/31.0-32.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5 / T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant
and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5/C noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer
demand from the Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5 / G found that lack of wastewater
disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is
presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a
potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through
adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/8.0, which requires that wastewater treatment and
disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin.
2002 SEIR. The 2002 SEIR identified two supplemental impacts related to utilities and
service systems. Supplemental Impact UTS-1 identified an uncertain energy supply
within this portion of PG & E's service territory. Mitigation Measures SM-UTS-1
required City discretionary review prior to installation of any on-site power generators
and SM-UTS-2 requires that applicants for Site Development Review approvals obtain
will serve letters from PG & E prior to approval of such applications.
City of Dublin Page 88
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Supplemental Impact SM-2 identified a supplemental impact with regard to constraints
of PG & E's local distribution system. This impact would be mitigated by adherence to
Supplemental Mitigation Measures UTS-1 and 2.
2005 SEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures related to utilities or
service systems were identified in the 2005 SEIR.
All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 SEIR will apply
to the proposed Project.
An SB 610 Water Supply Assessment (WSA)was approved by the DSRSD Board of
Directors for development envisioned in the 2005 SEIR. This WSA was approved in
2005 by Minute Order No. 05-32 by the DSRSD Board of Directors. This document is
incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at the Dublin
San Ramon Services District during normal business hours.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The
Project site is located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicants
have requested water and wastewater service from the District. Applicable
mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this Project
to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that water and
wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements
mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, impacts
associated with this topic would be less-than-significant. No new or substantially
more severe supplemental impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than
have been analyzed in the prior EIRs.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
No New Impact. The EDSP and Eastern Dublin EIR require developers of each
individual project in the Eastern Dublin area to fund their fair share contribution
to construct major, backbone infrastructure systems as well as to either fund or
construct local water and wastewater facilities shown in the EDSP. Therefore,
although new water and wastewater facilities would be needed to serve proposed
development on the Jordan Ranch, these facilities have been identified in the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as amended in 2005 and as analyzed in the 2005 SEIR.
Section 3.4 of the 2005 SEIR includes a description of water and wastewater
facilities that are will be built as part of the overall Fallon Village project, which
includes the Jordan Ranch Site. As part of Project review by the City of Dublin,
DSRSD and Zone 7 staffs, the Project developer(s) will either be required to
construct a portion of these identified facilities in order to support the proposed
Project or pay development impact fees to assist in the construction of regional
water and wastewater facilities. The 2005 SEIR did not identify any significant
supplemental or more severe water or wastewater impacts than was analyzed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR.
City of Dublin Page 89
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
The water and wastewater facilities needed to serve the proposed Project are
substantially similar to those analyzed in the prior EIRs. There would therefore be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact
than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed development
project would require new drainage facilities to support proposed development.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, as amended in 2005 and analyzed in the 2005
SEIR (p. 24), identifies storm drain facilities to be constructed as part of the larger
Fallon Village Project to ensure that adequate drainage is provided. The Project
applicant will be required to either construct these facilities or pay development
impact fees to assist in the construction of regional drainage facilities. The 2005
SEIR did not identify supplemental or more severe drainage impacts than
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and impacts related to drainage facilities
would be less-than-significant.
The storm drainage facilities needed to serve the proposed Project are substantially
similar to those analyzed in the prior EIRs. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. The provision of water
supplies was addressed in the 2002 SEIR, since the Fallon Village project was
proposed to be annexed into the City of Dublin and DSRSD at that time. Under a
previous legal settlement agreement, DSRSD was required to approve a
Programmatic Water Service Analysis prior to annexation. This analysis was
included as part of the 2002 SEIR (pages 3.7-4-6) and found that DSRSD had
identified an adequate long-term water supply for the overall Fallon Village
Project. DSRSD has approved a WSA for the Fallon Village Project and the Jordan
Ranch Project water demand is within the amount included in the WSA. The
decrease in residential units by 284 will result in a lower water demand than
included in the WSA. There would therefore be no new or substantially more
severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously
analyzed in the prior EIRs.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See
response to "a," above.
f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The Project area is within the franchise area of
Amador Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial
solid waste pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal
were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and a less-than-significant would result
with regard to this topic. Since development under the proposed Project would
generally be consistent with previous land use approvals that were analyzed in the
various CEQA documents identified in the Initial Study, no new or substantially
more severe impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed in prior
EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 90
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No
New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations should the proposed reorganization be approved.
No impacts are anticipated in this regard. There would therefore be no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has
been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New
Impact. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species
or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or
animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or
prehistory in the eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR and two Supplemental EIRs. The proposed Project would
cause no new or substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural
resources beyond those identified in previous EIRs.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No
New Impact. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with
regard to cumulative biological, air quality and transportation issues for the
overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Jordan Ranch Property is a
component. The proposed Project on the Jordan Ranch would not result in new or
substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts than have been
previously analyzed in the prior EIRs by the City.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. No such impacts have
been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. There would
therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect
to this impact than has been previously analyzed in the prior EIRs.
City of Dublin Page 91
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
Mark Lander, City Engineer
Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Timothy Cremin, Assistant City Attorney
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Chief Nice, Dublin Police Services
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Applicant Representatives
Kevin Fryer
References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEOA Guidelines, Revised
December 1999
Biological Assessment for the Jordan Ranch Development Project, Olberding
Environmental, inc., October 2009
Biological Resource Analysis for the Tordan Ranch Property Olberding
Environmental, Inc., October 2009
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9 / 14 / 06
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Properties Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation, Draft
Supplemental EIR, City of Dublin, January 2002
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
City of Dublin Page 92
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Fallon Village Project, Draft Supplemental EIR, August 2005
Jordan Ranch Traffic Analysis and Site Plan Review-Technical Memorandum,
Fehr & Peers Associates, March 2010
Parks and Recreation Master Plan City of Dublin, 2004 update
Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment for the Jordan Ranch, ATC
Associates, Inc., June 2008
ATC Associates, May,
2008
Resource Management Plan for the Eastern Dublin Properties, WRA and Zander
Associates, 2004
Special-Status Plant Survey Report for the Tordan Ranch Property, Olberding
Environmental, Inc, September 2009
City of Dublin Page 93
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
Appendix
-WRA Biological Resource Letter
City of Dublin Page 94
Initial Study/Jordan Ranch Property April 30, 2010
PA 09-011
sawra
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
March 15, 2010
Jerry Haag
2029 University Avenue
Berkeley, California 94704
RE: Jordan Ranch Biological Studies Peer Review
Dear Mr. Haag,
WRA biologists have reviewed the Jordan Ranch biological documents prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. and all additional documentation provided regarding the development
project of the Jordan Ranch Property (Project Area), located in Dublin, Alameda County,
California. This letter sets forth our evaluation of the biological studies to determine the
following:
• If there are other potentially occurring or known special status plant or wildlife species on
the site that the reports fail to discuss;
• If there are any sensitive habitats potentially occurring or known that could support
special status plant or wildlife species on the site;
• If the reports accurately disclose the extent of the proposed project's impacts to any
sensitive biological resources on the site; and,
• If proposed mitigation measures are consistent with the Resource Management Plan for
the East Dublin Properties.
This letter summarizes the methods and results of the peer review.
METHODS
On February 9, 2010, a WRA biologist conducted a site reconnaissance of the Project Area.
Prior to the site visit, background information on potentially occurring federal- and state-listed
endangered, threatened and rare plant and wildlife species and sensitive natural communities
was compiled through a review of the following resources:
• California Natural Diversity Database records (CNDDB) (CDFG 2010)
• CDFG publication "Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in
California" (Jennings and Hayes 1994)
• CDFG publication "Bird Species of Special Concern in California" (Shuford and Gardali
2008)
• Resource Management Plan for the East Dublin Properties (WRA and Zander
Associates, 2004).
Database searches focused on the Livermore 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle. Additionally, aerial
photographs of the Project Area were reviewed.
2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454-8868 tel (415) 454-0129 fax info@wro-ca.com www.wro-ca.com
The following biological and project documents were reviewed:
• Burrowing Owl and Raptor Survey for the Jordan Ranch Property, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. August 2008.
Special-Status Plant Survey Report for the Jordan Ranch Property, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. September 2009.
• Biological Resource Analysis for the Jordan Ranch Property, Alameda County,
California. Prepared for BJP-ROF Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding
Environmental, Inc. October 2009.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Assessment for the Jordan Ranch Development
Project (Corps File No. 25091 S), Alameda County, California. Prepared for BJP-ROF
Jordan Ranch, LLC. Prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc. October 2009.
• Preliminary Site Plan, Jordan Property, Dublin, California. Prepared by RJA. December
1, 2009.
RESULTS
The comments below are generally broken down by report; however, there are some areas of
overlap.
Burrowina Owl and Raptor Surve
WRA concurs with the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the Burrowing Owl and
Raptor Survey report. It should be noted that the Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) and Sharp-
shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) were removed from the list of Bird Species of Special Concern
in 2008 (Shuford and Gardali). Also, although all raptors (and all native bird species) are
protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code, the following
species are not considered special status raptors:
Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)
Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
American Kestrel (Falco sparverius)
Barn Owl (Tyto alba)
Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus)
Special-Status Plant Survey Report
WRA concurs with the methodology, findings, and recommendations of the Special-Status Plant
Survey Report for the Jordan Ranch Property.
3
Biological Resources Analysis
The Biological Resources Analysis states that it includes a "review of information related to
species of plants and animals that could potentially utilize" the Project Area. Within this context,
we analyzed the site and the report and found that the following should be addressed based on
a recent literature review:
Remove the following species from Table 2 in Attachment 2 (they either have been removed
from the CDFG Species of Special Concern list, or have never been designated as such):
Cooper's Hawk
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Great Horned Owl
Red-tailed Hawk
Red-shouldered Hawk
American Kestrel
Barn Owl
Based on our survey of the site and a CDFG publication (Shuford and Gardali 2008), several
special status wildlife species that occur in the San Francisco Bay region were not addressed in
the biological analysis. To be consistent with recent agency actions, the potential for
occurrence of this species on the site should be assessed. The following table supplements
Table 2 in Attachment 2.
Species Status Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site
Long-billed Curlew SSC, Coastal estuaries, open Moderate Potential. The grazed
Numenius americanus BCC grasslands, and croplands grasslands provide suitable winter
are used in winter while foraging habitat for flocks of this nomadic
upland short-grass prairies species. Because it does not nest on the
and wet meadows are used site, no potential impacts to this species
for nesting. will occur.
Yellow Warbler SSC Prefer dense riparian Unlikely. The fragmented willows along
Dendroica petechia vegetation for breeding. the central drainage do not provide typical
habitat for this bird.
Saltmarsh Common SSC, Found in freshwater Unlikely. Cattails and fragmented
Yellowthroat BCC marshes, coastal swales, willows provide potential habitat, but the
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa riparian thickets, brackish Project Area may be within a zone of
marshes, and saltwater gradation between this and another
marshes. subspecies of Common Yellowthroat;
also, the species was rarely encountered
in central Contra Costa County (Glover
2009).
Yellow-breasted Chat SSC Found in dense, brushy Unlikely. The fragmented willows along
Icteria virens thickets and tangles near the central drainage do not provide typical
water, and in thick habitat for this bird.
understory in riparian
woodland.
4
Species Status Habitat Notes Potential to Occur On-site
Grasshopper Sparrow SSC Generally prefers Unlikely. Grazed and and conditions in
Ammodramus moderately open, tall the Project Area are generally not
savannan.m grasslands and prairies with preferred by this species (Glover 2009).
patchy bare ground.
Bryant's Savannah SSC Generally occurs in tidal Unlikely. The Project Area is located
Sparrow marshes, coastal prairie, east of the mapped distribution of this
Passerculus and grasslands along coast, species (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
sandwichensis alaudinus and inland in the fog belt.
Lawrence's Goldfinch BCC Inhabits oak woodlands, Moderate Potential. Scattered willows
Carduelis lawrencei chaparral, riparian and perennial water source in the central
woodlands, pinyon-juniper drainage provide suitable habitat for this
associates, and weedy somewhat nomadic bird. Pre-
water during the breeding construction surveys and avoidance
season. (Section 8.0 of the report) will reduce
project-related impacts to a less than
significant level.
Western Red Bat SSC They are typically solitary, Unlikely. Trees on the site are scattered
Lasiurus blossevillii roosting primarily in the small willows along the central drainage,
foliage of trees or shrubs. or the eucalyptus trees near the
Day roosts are commonly in residence site; both areas provide poor
edge habitats adjacent to roosting habitat.
streams or open fields, in
orchards, and sometimes in
urban areas possibly and
association with riparian
habitat (particularly willows,
cottonwoods, and
sycamores).
Ringtail CFP It is typically found in remote Unlikely. The Project Area lacks typical
Bassariscus astutus areas with trees, brush, and dense cover associated with the Ringtail.
rock crevices for cover. It is
often found in riparian
forests or steep, rocky
canyons.
SSC: CDFG Species of Special Concern
CFP: California fully protected
BCC: USFWS Bird Species of Conservation Concern
As of March 2010, the California Tiger Salamander is a candidate for listing under the California
Endangered Species Act. The Fish and Game Commission determined that listing was
warranted, and formal listing is anticipated in mid-2010. It is currently subject to the protections
of the California Endangered Species Act.
WRA concurs with most of the recommendations provided in Section 8.0 of the Biological
Resources Analysis; however, it is our opinion that further CTS and/or CRLF pre-construction
surveys (as recommended on Page 34), are unnecessary. Presence of these federal-listed
species has been confirmed, and further surveys are not warranted.
5
U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Assessment
It is assumed that the Biological Assessment has not been submitted to the USFWS. Due to
the level of impact, it is likely that the USFWS will require detailed information regarding the
proposed off-site mitigation area and its management. These and other comments regarding
the Biological Assessment are summarized below:
• Recommend including installation of permanent CTS/CRLF barrier along perimeter
fencing to prevent dispersal into adjacent developed areas.
• Although consistent with RMP, agencies unlikely to accept on-site
preservation/enhancement as mitigation for on-site impacts to CTS/CRLF. How will the
on-site preserve be managed?
• Agencies could require more off-site mitigation acreage, as allowed under Section
3.3.1.2 of the RMP, and as a result of the impending state listing of CTS in mid-2010.
For example, CDFG may require mitigation for impacts to CTS upland habitat within 1.3
miles of a known or potential breeding pond (similar to situation in Santa Rosa Plain,
Sonoma County).
• Agencies may not permit off-site relocation of salvaged amphibians.
• Applicant will need to request a consistency determination (Fish and Game Code
2080.1) from CDFG regarding the dual-listed CTS.
• List of Attachments in Table of Contents do not match actual attachments.
• Has USFWS approved use of the Mulqueeney Ranch as off-site mitigation? How will
habitat management at the off-site mitigation area be funded?
• It is recommended that a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan be developed; the
Biological Assessment does not include detailed information regarding the off-site
mitigation area, and how it will be managed and monitored. These details will likely
need to be in place before USFWS will prepare the Biological Opinion, and CDFG
considers a consistency determination.
CONCLUSION
WRA recommends that field survey reports be updated as indicated; otherwise, we concur with
the general conclusions and recommendations of the Burrowing Owl, Rare Plant, and Biological
Resources Analysis reports.
The Biological Assessment does not include a management plan for the off-site mitigation area,
and does not indicate the source of funding for management and monitoring. The USFWS will
likely require more detail prior to issuing a Biological Opinion for the project.
Recently, the Fish and Game Commission determined that listing of the CTS was warranted,
and formal listing is anticipated in mid-2010. It is currently subject to the protections of the
California Endangered Species Act. Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 states the
requirements and procedures for a 2080.1 Consistency Determination. Section 2080.1 allows
an applicant who has obtained a federal incidental take statement pursuant to a federal Section
7 consultation or a federal Section 10(a) incidental take permit to notify the Director in writing
that the applicant has been issued an incidental take statement or an incidental take permit
pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The applicant must submit the federal
6
opinion incidental take statement or permit to the Director of Fish and Game for a determination
as to whether the federal document is "consistent" with CESA. Receipt of the application by the
Director starts a 30-day clock for processing the Consistency Determination.
In order for the Department to issue a Consistency Determination, the Department must
determine that the conditions specified in the federal incidental take statement or the federal
incidental take permit are consistent with CESA. If the Department determines that the federal
statement/permit is not consistent with CESA, the applicant must apply for a State Incidental
Take Permit under section 2081(b) of the Fish and Game Code.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeff Dreier
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
7