Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 138-97 NegDecl DubRan ARESOLUTION NO. 138- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREA A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 96-038) WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("EDSP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and WHEREAS, the EDSP provides more specific and detailed goals, policies and action programs for approximately 3313 acres within the GPA area nearest to the City on its Eastern side; and WHEREAS, a Program Environmental Impact Report ("Program EIR") was prepared for the EDSP and GPA (SCH No. 91103604) and certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993, by Resolution No. 51- 93, and two Addenda dated May 4, 1993, and August 22, 1994 ("Addenda") have been prepared and adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1993, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 53-93, adopting the GPA and EDSP, making findings and adopting overriding considerations as to the environmental impacts and mitigation measures relating to the EDSP and GPA, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program ~' (''Program MMP") for the GPA and EDSP; and .~ WHEREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned Development (PD) District Rezone request (PA 96-038 Dublin Ranch Area A) for rezoning an approximately 351.5 acre site to the following land uses: 135.3 acres to PD Low Density Residential, 71.5 acres to PD Rural Residential Agriculture, and 144.7 acres Open Space. These land uses are proposed to accommodate future development of up to 573 dwelling units in 7 neighborhoods, accessory recreational uses, a golf course, and related improvements. The project is generally located north of the Interstate 580 Freeway, along both sides of the planned Fallon Road extension, and east of Dublin Ranch Phase I, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared aa Initial Study and Negative Declaration ("ND") for the project, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and incorporated herein by reference, which documents reflect the ' independent judgment of the City as to the project's environmental effects, and which addresses the applicability and implementation of each of the programs in the EDSP and each of the mitigation measures in the Program Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study is supplemented by studies regarding noise, traffic, biological and visual impacts incorporated herein by reference. Copies of these studies are available for review at the City of Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study de!?_ onstrated that the Project would have no potentially significant environmental impacts which were not adequately described and analyzed in the Program EIR. Project- specific impacts beyond those in the Program EIR were addressed in the Initial Study and supplemental studies. All recommendations from the supplemental studies are included in the project description and/or reflected or confirmed in conditions of approval; and Wlt-EREAS, a 30 day public review period was held for the Negative Declaration, from June 18, 1997, through July 18, 1997; and W~REAS, no letters commenting on the Negative Declaration were received during the comment period; and WI~REAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project on October 28, 1997 and recommended approval of the Negative Declaration and the project in Resolution No. 97-024; and WItEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the project, during which it considered the Planned Development (PD) District Rezone request and -Negative Declaration '::. ~:,ii~i.:.f:.." NOW, TItEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEI) TItAT Tm*~ City Council l~;ebYfinds that: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorpOrated herein as a part of this resolution. 2. Pursuant to Section 21083.3, subdivision (b) and (e), of the Public Resources Code and pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project is within the scope of the EDSP and the GPA Program EIR, the Project and all of its potentially significant environmental impacts were adequately described and analyzed in the EItL the Project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR, and all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the imposition of the mitigation measures identified in the Program MMP, and no new significant impacts were identified in the Initial Study for the Project. 3. Pursuant to Section 21166 and Section 21083.3, Subdivisions (b) and (e), of the Public Resources Code, and pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines: a) the Project does not constitute a change from the program (i.e. the GPA and the EDSP) analyzed in the Program Ell[ which would require major revisions in the Program EIR; b) there are no substantial changes in the surrounding circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken from those circumstances which existed when the City certified the Program EIR which would require major revisions in the Program ElK; and c) there is no new information of substantial importance to the GPA, the EDSP, or the Project which, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known when the Program EIR was certified and which shows either (i) that the Project will have significant environmental effects not discussed or substantially underestimated in the Program Eli[ or, (ii) that there are mitigation measures or alternatives not identified as feasible in the Program EIR and not included as part of the Project which would reduce or avoid any significant environmental impacts. 2 4. Pursuant to section 21080, subdivision (c), of the Public Resources Code and pursuant to section 15074, subdivision (b), of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council (1) certifies that it has considered the Negative Declaration; (2) finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) hereby approves the Negative Declaration. 5. The City Council does hereby apply the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program to the Project, along with the conditions made a part of project approval, as a supplement to the Program MMP as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 for the Project. 6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a) (2), the City Council specifies that the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its findings and decision herein are based shall be located at City Hall, and their custodians shall be the City Clerk and the Community Development Director of the City. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmernbers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Lockhart and Mayor Houston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None · Mayor G:kPA96038\ecresnd. K2/G/11-18-9 7/reso l-a. doc 3 EXHIBIT A-1 Initial Study and Negative Declaration INITIAL STUDY "DUBLEN RANCH AREA A" - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning Planning Application # 96-038 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed Dublin Ranch Area A Planned Development Rezoning (the project). The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and provide the City with adequate information for project review. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report [consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 28, 1992; Responses to Comments Part I dated December 7, 1992; Responses to Comments Part II dated December 21, 1992; Revisions to Part I of the Responses to Comments relating to the Kit Fox; and Addendum to the DEIR dated May 4, 1993; and a DKS Associates Traffic Study dated December 15, I992 (SCH91103064)] was adopted by the City Council on May 10, 1993. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is available to the public for review of the City of Dublin Planning Department located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report was approved by the City CoUncil on Auga~st 22, 1994. It is also available for review of the Planning Department. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR concluded certain significant impacts Mil result from the development o£Eastern Dublin. Most of those impacts will be reduced to insigzfificance by mitigation measures of the EIR. Some will remain unavoidable si~maificant adverse impacts but they were included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations passed by the Dublin City Council when it certified the EIR. The environmental impact report that was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan was a "Pro.am" environmental impact report (Pro.am EIR). If a pro.am environmental impact report is prepared, subsequent environmental documents need to be prepared for projects within the pro.am only if there are additional environmental impacts not considered in the preparation of the original environmental document or additional mitigation measures are required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168). The Project will not create any significant impacts which were not already covered by the EIR or reduced to i~sigrfificance by mitigation measures of the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and conditions of approX,,al of the project. Dublin Ranch Area A is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and is considered one in a series o£actions covered by the Pro.am EIR. The project is within the scope of the Pro.am EIR, and the pro.am EIR & Addendum adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no changes or new information which would necessitate supplementing the Pro.am EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA guidelines Section 15162. This Initial Study includes a Project Description, Environmental Checklist Form, an Evaluation and Discussion of issues identified in the checklist, and a Determination. The attachment to the Initial Stud is a Matrix which has incorporated the Mitigation Measures and Action Programs of the Eastern Dublin ~ General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR which will reduce the environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance. The Matrix has been designed for use in evaluating specific project proposals in Eastern Dublin for compliance with the Eastern Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Pro~m'arn. The Mitigation Measures of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (the FEIR) and the two approved addenda thereto are referenced throughout this Initial Study. Please refer to the Matrix to review the Mitigation Measures and/or Action Programs, or refer to the FEIR itself for complete mitigation descriptions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is known as the "Dublin Ranch Area A" - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning. This proposal · for a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning is the second Phase of rezoning for the Dublin Ranch project site; a PD Rezoning for Phase I of Dublin Ranch was approved by the City in 1996. Current PD Rezoning applications for the Dublin Ranch project occupy approximately 816 acres of land and are composed of five parts, labeled Areas A, B, C, D, and E. This environmental review addresses Area A only. The environmental review for Areas B through E has been combined into one component, and is being ~ processed under a separate Initial Study. The project site is located east of Tassajara Road, north ofi-580, and is north of the existing Fallon Road. It will occupy land on both the east and west sides of Fallon Road when this road is extended to the north. The entire Dublin Ranch project site was previously Prezoned with various PD land use categories. Consistent with the provisions of Section 8-31 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, a Land Use & - Development Plan (LUDP) is now being proposed to fmalize the zoning for the project area. The land uses proposed under this LUDP are consistent with the approved PD Prezoning categories The LUDP will also serve the capacity of a District Planned Development Plan (DPDP) as required to implement the provisions of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The development plan proposed for Area A consists of 571 single family dwelling units on lots ranging in size from approx/mately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet, an 18-hole golf course, a public trail system, and open space on about 352 acres of land. Area A is the northern portion of the remaining (Phase 2) Dublin Ranch project areas on the annexed portion of the Lin Property. The land use plan for Area A includes a fairly precise siting of the residential units and development of the golf course and trail system. Additional information and details regarding the project can be found in the attached Project Description, which follows the Initial Study. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This study was prepared based upon the location of the project, staff office review, field review, comments submitted by local agencies; use of City Planning documents, the CEQA Law and Guidelines, City of Dublin CEQA Guidelines, and the previously certified Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and Addendum (FEIR). The FEIR concluded certain significant impacts will result from the development of Eastern Dublin. Most of those impacts will be reduced to insignificance by mitigation measures of the EIR. Some will remain unavoidable significant adverse impacts but they were included in a Statement of Overriding Considerations passed by the Dublin City Council when it certified the EIR. Dublin Ranch Area A will not create any significant impacts not already covered by the EIR. Impacts of the project are described below. 2. 3. 4. 10. Project title: Dublin Ranch Area A - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Contact person and phone number:. Tasha Huston, Associate Planner; (510)833-6610 Project location: East of Tassajara Road, north of Interstate 580 Freeway, within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan project area. Project sponsor's name and address: Ted C. Fairfield, Consulting Civil Engineer for Jennifer Lin, etak, P.O. Box 1148, 5510 Sunol Boulevard, Pleasanton, CA 94566 General plan: Single Family Residential; Rural Residential/A~iculmre; Open Space Zoning: PD Low Density Residential; PD Rural Residential/Agriculture; PD Open Space Description of project: The Planned Development (i'D) District Rezone proposed for the Dublin Ranch Area A site includes land use designations, standards, residential densities, and deslgu guidelines for each land use category, including Low Density Residential, Rural Residential/A~m-iculture, and Open Space. The development plan proposed for Area A consists of. 571 single family dwelling units on lots ran~ng in s/ze fi.om approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet, an 18-hole golf course, a public trail system, and open space on about 352 acres of land. Area A is the northern portion of the remaining (Phase 2) Dublin Ranch project areas on the annexed portion of the Lin Property. The land use plan for Area A includes a fairly precise siting of the residential u~ts and development of the golf course and trail system. Surrounding land uses and setting: Planned Development Single Family, Medium Density Residential, Open Space, and Rural Residential/A~m-iculture; Cattle Grazing, A~iculture, Equestrian Facility, and Firewood Sales Other public agencies whose approval is required ' None 3 E/~,rlRONMENT.4J_, FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the followSng pages. i~ Land Use and Planning [] Population and Housing [] Oeolo~cal Problems ~ Water [] Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Ene~oy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise [] Public Services 1~ Utilities and Service Systems IK! Aesthetics i~ Cultural Resources [] Recreation [] Mandatory Findings of Si~mu.ificance ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CttECKLIST I. I~4h~l) USE A.NrD PLANt'lNG. Would zheproposal: a) Conflict with general plan desig-nation or zoning? (Source #: 1, 2 ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or. policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (1, 2 ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinify? ( 1, 2 ) d) .affect agricultural resources or OPerations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1, 2 ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a Iow-income or minority community)? (1,2) 1I. POPULATION .4aND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1) Induce substantial ~owth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or ex"teusion of major infrastructure)? (1) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Woutd the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving; J~otentially Potentially Significant Unless 34'iligation ln£o,"port~ted 125.~ Iht~n $ign!ftC~tt Jtl~pact a) Fault rupture7 (I, 3 ) b) Seismic ground shaking? (1, 3 ) c) Seismic ~ound failure, including liquefaction? (1, 3 ) d) Seiehe, tsunami, or volcanic haTard? (1, 3 ) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1, 3 ) f) Erosion, changes in topo~aphy or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (1, 3 ) g) Subsidence of land? (I, 3 ) h) Expansive soils? (1, 3 ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1,3) [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 5 IV. WATER. Woulcl the proposal result in: ?otcmialO. Sit,cam lmt~ct a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface mnolT? (l) [] b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1) [] c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration ofsttrface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (1) [] d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (1) [] e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1) [] f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or throug~h substantial loss of ~oundwater [] recharge capabiliry? (1) 'g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (I) [] h) Impacts to grotmdwater quality? (I) [] i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ~oundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (1) [] V. AIR QUAJ_,ITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or conu-ibute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1, 2 ) [] · b) Ex"pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (l, 2 ) [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (l, 2 ) [] d) Create objectionable odors? (I, 2 ) [] VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUI~TION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (1, 2, 4 ) b) Hazards to safer5, from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (1, 2, 4 ) c) Inadequate eme~ency access or access to nearby uses? (l, 2, 4 ) d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? (l, 2, 4 ) e) hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (t, 2, 4 ) f) Conflicts with adopmd policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., but turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 2, 4 ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (1) ?otentially Significant Unless Afitigation Incorporated [] f~ [] [] Jess ill,Itt Sitmificam Impact Impact ¥-1I. BIOLOGIC.4.L RESOURCES. PrTould the 2vroposat result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (1) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (1) c) Locally desig'nated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.).* (1) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (1) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1) VIZI. ENERGY .4_N'D MIh~ RESOURCES. FFould the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted ener~, conservation plans ? (I, 2 ) b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 0,2) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of furore value to the region and the residents of the State? (~,2) IX. ]~a.Z~-d)S. Would the proposal irroolve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release ofh~?~ardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (1) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (1) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (1) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (1) e) Increased fire hazxrd in areas with flammable brush, =m-ass, or trees? (1) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (1, 2, 5 ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (1, 2, 5 ) Pot=ntialty Signi. fic.~nt Impact [] [] [] [] [] Potenriallj, Incorporated [] [] [] [] [] [] [] $ip~i.~cmlt lmpac! [] [] [] [] [] 7 PUBLIC SERXrlCES. Would the proposal result in a need/or new or altered government se~ices in any of the following areas: linnet Potentiall), $ign~ficam Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significant Impact a) Fire protection? (1) [] ICl' [] [] b) Police protection? (I) [] [] F'] [] c) Schools? (I) [] !~ [] [] d) Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads? (1) [] [] [] [] e) Other government services (l) [] t~ [] [] XII. UTII,rrlES A_NrD SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (1, 2 ) b) Communications systems? (1, 2 ) 'c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (1, 2 ) d) sewer or septic tanks? (1, 2 ) e) Storm water drainage? (1, 2 ) f) Solid waste disposal? (I, 2 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, 2 ) X]II. A.ESTFrE~TICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or highway? (1, 2 ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? (1, 2 ) c) Create light or glare? (1, 2 ) XIV. CUL~ RESOLrRCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (1) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (1) c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (1) d) Ro.o-tfict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (1) XV. RECREATION. Would the proj~osal: a) Increase the demand for neigahborhood or regional par'ks or other recreational facilities? (1) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (1) D~ X~..M~4~N~DATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICAJ~CE. a) Does the project have the potential to de~ade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop be]ow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or reslrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistou? [] [] [] [] b) Does the project have potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 viewid in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) [] [] [] ID d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [] DISCUSSION - Mandatory Findings of Significance a) As indicated by the checklist form, the project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ora plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of California h/story or prehistory. b) All potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to reduce both the long term and the short term em, ironmental impacts .below a level of significance except for those impacts includ.ed within the Statement of Overriding Considerations of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. A description of the mitigation measures is contained in the Matrix, Attachment A. _. c) All potentially significant cumulative environmental impacts have been addressed in the EIR. d) As discussed under the headings "Risk of Upset" and "Human Health," the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. REFERENCES Referenced information sources utilized for this analysis include the following: i) 4) 6) 7) Deterrninationbased on location of project; Determ~nationbased on staff office rex~iew; Determination based on field review; Determination based on the City of Dublin General Plan; Determinationbased on the City of Dubtin Zoning Ordinance; Determination based on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Fin; EIR and Addendum; Not applicable. 9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the informatim sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and consu-nction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is subsumtial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIK is required. 4) 5) 'qqegative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measu~s, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, pro2_3xm EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analy~ed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). ). In this case a discussion should i~enfify the following on attached sheets: ~ a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Jdentify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the ~ifigation · measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lind ~encies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) ~ is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. ENrVIRONNIENTAL CHECKLIST' RESPONSES & ANALYSIS The following discussion includes explanations of answers to the above questions regarding potential emdronmental'impacts, as indicated on the preceding checklist. Each subsection is annotated with the number and letter corresponding to the checklist form. A majority of the potential impacts discussed v, dthin this initial study were addressed in the earlier analysis of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR (FEIR), incorporated by reference, and the mitigation measures adopted. Mitigation measures are noted, and the matrix of mitigation measures is included as Attachment A. The program EIR & addendum adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no changes or new information requiting a supplemental EIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15169.2.. EX~[STING SETTING: The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and is included in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Specific Plan area. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR for a description of the existing project setting. POTE/xr'I'IAL IM?ACTS AND MITIGATION MEASUt~S: L~,~x) USE & PLANNING: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and with the Eastern DubLin Specific Plan. The Planned Development proposed for Area A includes a golf course, which is considered an outdoor recreational use appropriate for the proposed location partially within the Open Space, Rural Residential/Agriculture and Low Density Residential areas. The development plan proposes undevelop.ed slopes sUrrounrting the homes and golf course, which will be revegetated with indigenous grasses and wildflowers. This will help to maintain consistency with the appearance of the existing roiling topography and natural gassy landscape. Imp_acts of residential land uses in the project were addressed in the earlier analysis of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment Final EnviroumentaI Impact Report (FEI'R). Cumulative impacts to agricultural resources were also addressed in the FEIR, and were found to have a . significant unavoidable cumulative impact The Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the Specific Plan includes this finding. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning will not raise significant new impacts beyond those discussed in the FEIR. POPULATION & HOUSING: The project would provide up to 571 housing units which are anticipated to be in a price range affordable to the future employees working v, dthin the City of Dubl~r~. The project will also make provisions to comply w/th the requirements of the Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. This is consistent with the policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan, to provide a range of housing t57)es for ali segments of the community. Growth inducing impacts associated with the development of housing and increased population as a result of the adopted Specific Plan were analyzed in the prior EIP~ The adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan siam:dried the City's intent to introduce urban development in an area that previously supported primarily rural activities. A discussion of population and housing issues was included in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, pp. 3.2-I throug~ 3.2-11. No significant impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur. 11 III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and ~,~, through various mitigation measures. For an explanation of items Sa, 3c, 3g, and Si, see FEIR mitigation measures MM 3.6/9.0 and 3.6/10.0 (p. 3.6-9); for discussion related to items 3e, 3f, 3h see lVl2Vl 3.6/27.0 and 3.6/28.0 (p. 3.6-14 and 15) and Geotechnical Investigation Dublin Ranch Phase I, June 19, 1995, Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants; for items 3b, 3d see MM 3.6/2.0 - 3.6/7.0, 3.6/11.0 - 3.6/26.0 (.p. 3.6-8 through 14) and the Geotechnical Investigation. No 'kno~m active or potentially active faults traverse the project site, and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are not located within the site. The potential for fault ~ound rupture is therefore considered to be nil. Implementation of mitigation measures w/ll reduce but not completely eliminate all hazards associated w/th groundshaking. No new impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur. WATER: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIX, and through various mitigation measures. The project site is located in an area of minimal ~oundwater recharge and ~oundwater reserves and the majority of the Tr/-Valley's ~oundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the project. Nevertheless, development of the project site could have an impact on local ~ound water resources and ~oundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious surfaces within the project site. However, no impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur. The project wiI1 result in the reali_mament and re-creation of an intermittent si:rem. A streambed alteration %m-eement from the Department offish and Game will be required. As development occurs in the area, more impervious surfaces will be created due to paved streets and building development. A master drainage plan for the entire project site will be prepared, therefore, an), changes to drainage patterns will be fully evaluated to ensure there are not si~onificant envkonmental impacts in this topic area. Due to the fact that future on-site developmentwill be required to adhere to 'requirements of Zone 7 and the NrpDES permittingpro~hms, and the FEIR contain.q several _ mitigation measures which will be applied to this project, so that any water impacts will be mitigated to a level ofinsig-ni~Scance. Please refer to the EasteruDublin GPA/SPA Final EIR for a discussion of this impact, and Mitigation Measures 3.5/25.0 through 3.5/52.0. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA FEIR are expected to occur. .MR QUALm': These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIX, and through various mitigation measures. Construction-relatedair quality impacts include short-term violation of adopted · standards or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, and could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. Development of the project site will also result in traffic-related air quality impacts. The FEIR developed mitigation measures to reduce mobile and stationary source emissions. Air quality mitigation measures of the FEIR which will be applied to this project include: MM 3.11/1.0 through 3.11/4.0, 3.11/6.0, 3.11/13.0. Implementation of these mifigationmeasures c~nnot achieve the reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet the insi~maificantthreshold. The Eastern ~ Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR indicates that stationary source emissions air quality impacts remain sig]aificant and, therefore, this unmitigable impact was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur from this proposed project. TRA. NSPORTAT1ON/CIRCULATION: ~l~e impaCtS' to transportation and circulation were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The FEIR indicmes four traffc/circulafion impacts which are not capable of mitigation to a level of insignificance. Tw~ of them affect intersections and the other two the general operation ofi-580. Cumulative impacts affecting 1-580 would occur irrespective of development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These four impacts have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted Mth the Specific Plan. A traffic analysis conducted for the proposed PD Rezone (TJKM, June, 1997; included by reference) outlines the potential traffic impacts from this project, and measures for mitigating these impacts. The project proponent will need to make improvements to roadway systems as required b5 the lzaffic study, the mitigation measures of the FEIR, and conditions of the PD Rezone approval. Many of these measures will be completed as part of the project, while others will be cumulative improvements to which the project developers will contribute. With implementation of the improvements required to address traffic impacts from the project, the potential impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. No new mitigation measures are required. Potential impacts of hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangero~ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); inadequate emergency access or access nearby uses; in.~ufficien'~parking capacity on- or off-site were identified in the FEIR. Al1 projects taus go througJa a site development process prior to approval and are required to meet ali City zonim standards. Because of the combination of land uses future developments will be required to meet th~ City zoning standards for each use. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts fi.om Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists were also addressed in the prior FEIR. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Policy 5-15 and Figure 5.3 show bicycle pedestrian paths throughout the project area. Impacts potentially occurring in this project area include conflicts of pedestrians and bicycles crossing Fallon Road from the eastern portion of Area A toward th_e Dublin Ranch Phase I neighborhood and beyond. This impact can be mitigated in part by the golf cart undercrossingproposed at the northern intersection of Fallon Road and the Area A collector street. In addition, FEIK MitigationMeasure 3.3/16.1 requires the location of pedestrian & bicycle paths to · cross major arterial streets at sig-nalized intersections, to provide safe crossing. Several pedestrian and bicycle routes, including a multi-use U-ail, provide trails and paths which will converge at these signalized intersections to encourage safe crossing. The above-noted traffic impacts of the project will be mitigated by the following mitigation measures of the EIR and Action Pro,ams of the Specific Plan: MM3.3/2.1 through 3.3/16.1 and 3.12/7.0 and Action Pro,ams 5A fin-)ugh 5D. Implementation of these rrfitigafionmeasures will reduce a majority of*he trail5 c-relatedimpacts to a level of insignificance. The Eastern Dubtin GPA/SPA Final EIR indicates that some impacts (both project-specificand cumulative) remain potentially siguificanteven afterimplementationofproposedmitigationmeasures. Please refer to the Eastern Dubiin GPA/SPA Final ElK for a complete iisting. Aside fi.om the traffic related impacts noted above, the Project will not raise any new siguificant traffic impacts which have not already been evaluated in the previous emdronmenta/analyses done for the proposed development. 13 VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Impacts from the project upon biological resources wer~ thoroughly addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and various mitigation measures will apply to the project. For complete descriptions of existing conditions, maps and other information identifyi.~ such impacts please consult the FEIR.. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or habitat of the species. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR identified various impacts upon biological resources and mitigation of impacts in the following areas: a.) Habitat Loss & Vegetation Removal; b.) Bomnjcally Sensitive Habitats; c.) Wildlife Resources; d.) Threatened and Endangered Species; e.) Federal Candidates for Listing; f.) California Species of Special Concern; g.) Special Status Invertebrates. The project site is covered primarily with introduced annual grgsses and does not provide unusual or high quality habitat for any rare or endangered species of plants or animals. Mitigation measures to address the impacts upon the above resources from development of the Specific Plan area were included in the FEIR and included in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Matrix for listing of mitigation measures.) Several mitigation measures and programs apply to the project site, and involve further studies and pre-construcfionsurveys of the project site. Six separate plant and animal surveys of the project site were conducted by H. T. Harvey and Associates over the past six years. These surveys have been insmmaental in setting parameters for site design. The topics of the surveys and the applicabili~' of the reports to the individual project components areas are described below in excerpts taken summa_~-of the surveys provided by H. T. Harvey and Associates, August 30, 1996. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JUR_ISDICTIONAL~ALYSIS Most of the site has bein intensively grazed, the drainage network and its comp~)nent channel have become incised and arroyos have formed. Areas meeting the technical criteria for identification as jurisdictional wetlands were delineated primarily along site drainageways and in seeped zones in the Tassajara Creek watershed. RARE PLANrl' SURVEYS The Dublin Ranch site was surveyed for special status plant surveys in the Spring of 1990. A list of potentially occurring plants was generated by reviewing the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR, appropriate local references, and the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). The entire site was surveyed to locate potential habitat for any potentially occurring species. Transects were then established and surveyed through appropriate habitat, searching for any special status species potentially on site. No special status plants were found. Generally, the site had been grazed, and the vegetation height, biomass and diversity were low. EASTERN DUBLIN GOLDEN EAGLE SURVEY The Golden Eagle nest sim that had been identified by Biosystems Analysis in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR was re-surveyed in 1990. The nest site was monitored throughout the spring. Two chicks were observed at the nest site in 1990; one of which later died. The remaining chick fledged in late June, 1990. ' ' ADDITIONAL GOLDEN EAGLE SURVEYS H.T. Harvey & Associates raptor biologists have continued to monitor nest sites on the property since 1990. Eagles did not nest on the property during the years of 1991 and 1992. During these years the pair probably bred at an alternative nest site (or nest sites) offthe property because the nes tree they had been using (a Eucalyptus tree) was largely defoliated during an extended hard freeze during the winter of 1990-1991. In 1993, the foliage returned to the nest tree and so did the pair. The birds successfully fledged one young from the nest. In 1994 the birds attempted to rebuild the nest but it apparently collapsed. The pair then moved to an alternative Eucalyptus tree in the same drainage but cioser to Tassajara Road, late in the season, and fledged one young. The pair used the same nest again in 1995, when at least one young eagle was observed in the nest. The pair returned to this alternate nest site in I996. They laid eggs, and at least one chick was observed in the nest in late April. By early May, no adult eagles were seen near the nest, nor were nestlings seen. It was determined that the site had failed and that the nest had been abandoned. The old nest (the one used prior to 1994) has completely collapsed and should no longer be considered an active nest site. SLFMM.4&Y OF KIT FOX SURVEYS IN CONTRA COSTA AND .4J.,A2MEDA COLrNTIES H.T. Harvey and Associates prepared a report which reviews the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and other survey reports, as well as historic information regarding the distribution and range of the San Joaquin kit fox in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Results from 13 recenl surveys for 'kit foxes were reviewed, as well as historic surveys conducted by the Department'of Fish and Game. Historic range maps were also reviewed. The report concludes that negative resulla of more than 10 years of surveys in the Dublin area leaves liffie doubt that Dublin is outside the range of the San Joaquin kit fox. The presence and high densities of red foxes and coyotes make the likelihood of range expansion by the kit fox into the Dublin area extremely remote. SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX The San Joaquin kit fox, a federal endangered and slate threatened species, is known from sites about 7 or more miles to the east and northeast of the Ranch. The range and agricultural lands of the Ranch and surrounding areas would be low to moderate quality kit fox habitat. Previous surx, ey: on portions of the Dublin Ranch and surrounding areas did not detect kit foxes, but detected several possible tracks. These prior surveys were conducted for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EER by Biosystems Analysis. H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted kit fox surveys at twice the intensity recommended at that time (1991)by California Department of Fish and Game guidelines. These surveys (September-October 1991) did not detect 'kit fox activity on or near the Ranch. I5 SPECIAL STATUS AMPHIBIAN AB,rD REPTILE-SURVEYS Surveys were conducted for special status amphibian and reptile species on the Dublin Ranch ~ Property during the Spring of 1993. The site is located in northern Alameda County, near the cities of Livermore and Dublin. The focus of these surveys included California tiger salamander (.4mbystoma californier~e), California red-legged frog (iana aurora draytonii), and Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmoratapallida). No Cali£omia tiger salamanders were found during the survey. Fifteen subadult California red-legged frogs were found at two locations. Ten were along the northern boundary of the site in a stock pond adjacent to the intermittent creek channel. Five more were found near the southern boundary along Fallon Road. Two adult southwestern pond turtles were found along Tassajara Creek. These £mdings were consistent with the 1989 surveys conducted by Biosystems for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specifi. c Plan EIR. 1995 SPECIAL-STATUS A_MPHIBL4.N AND REPTILE SURVEYS H.T. Harvey and Associates conducted additional surveys in the spring of 1995 to determine if the distribution and abundance of special-stares reptiles and amphibians had changed. These surveys were initiated in a rainfall season (1994-1995) that was hearty 200% of normal. Surveys were undertaken to provide any new data to the City of Dublin, which was undertaking a stream corridor restoration plan and _crazing man~ement plan for the vicinity. No California Tiger Salamander larvae, juveniles or adults were detected anywhere on the site. Seven juvenile California red-legged frogs were detected in two ponds on sim (the same locations as in previous surveys). One of these ponds is located along the northern boundary of the site near a tributary to Tassajara Creek, while~; the other is along the southern bouadary near Fallon Road. Two western pond turtles were detected along Tassajara Creek. The location and abundance of the C~tifomia red-legged frog and western pond turtle have been consistent throughout three separate studies. Based on the sampling from 1989, 1993 and I995, the project site does not support a breeding population of California Tiger salamanders. DUBLIN RANCH FAIRY SHRIM~ SURVEYS Small, day'pan pools occurring on the Dublin Ranch property were monitored for listed fairy shrimp from December 1995 to April 1996. The only fairy shrimp observed in the pools was Branchinecta lindahi, which is not a special status species. This species of fairy shrimp tolerates a wide range of conditions and is the most common fairy shrimp in California. In general, the pools supported a tow diversity of invertebrates and contained such weedy, opportunistic species as mosquito la_ri,ac and midgefly larvae. APPLICABILITY OF REPORTS TO "AREA A" OF THE PROJECT The studies conducted by H.T. Harvey and/ussociates apply to the entire Dublin Ranch Project area_ However, not all identified mitigations apply to each individual portion of the project. The discussion below distinguishes between the areas affected by/addressed in the surveys and reports.~ In Area A of the project, there are several seasonal drainages. Mitigation plans involving recreation of the drain~es 'a411 be developed. However, none of the locations for red-legged frogs or pond turtles occurs within Area A. Red-legged frogs are found in portions of the drainage north of Area .4:. Most of Area A is not within the watershed of the northern drainage that supports the red-legged frog, that is, the development is over the ridgeline from the drainage. However, some grading will occur v,,ith/n the watershed, considerably upslope of areas occupied by the frog. Special care will need to be given to erosion control techniques and construction timing to protect the frog. Additionally, Area A development could affect downstream sections of the drainage along Fallon Road that supports the Red legged frog. The water supply to this drainage will need to be protected. The Golden Eagle nest site is not within the project area. However, a line-of-sight buffer area around the nest has been incorporated into the planning for Area A to rain/m/re the intrusion into the buffer area. MITIGATION The Mitigation Measures adopted with the City's approved Mitigation Monitoring ProgTam, and corresponding conditions of approval, have been included in the project planning to protect any species that may be discovered prior to or during construction or to protect adjoining areas. The Mitigation Measures which address impacts to biological resources are: 3.7/1.0 through 3.7/28.0. Policies of the Specific Plan call for enhancement of open space area and riparian corridor with native plant species. Although the FEIR did not identify the site as having any endangered species of plant or animal life, certain Mitigation Measures of the FEIR and Action Programs of the Specific Plan (Action Prograrns 6A, 6C, and 60) require certain investigations and protocols prior to issuance of a building permit, and these have been included for this project. The FEIR discusses impacts to riparian and other wetland habitats, and finds that mitigation measures could not completely reduce the cumulative loss of sensitive habitat to a level ofinsigmificance. The adopted statement of overriding considerations includes this finding. The proposed Planned Development does not m/se any new significant impacts which were not addressed in the Final EIR. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. Although consumption of non-renewal resources (for the Specific Plan area as a whole) was identified as a sig-oit5 cant cnrnulative impact (discussed under section XII), future developmenI of the site is not anticipatedto use such resources in a wasteful or inefficientmanner. Therefore, this topic area was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No m~neral resources are 'known to exist on-site, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not result in any additional sig'rzificant impacts not covered by the FEIR. ttAZ~S: These items were addressed in the earl/er analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The project site is primarily open gasstands and contains no snmcmres. A Phase II site assessment of the project area has been conducted (Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, July 22, 1996) to determine the presence or absence of any on-site hazardous waste and substance sites. The findings of this study indicate that no problem sites were found. In addition, a data search was conducted to determine if the site was included on a list of hazardous waste and 17 substance sites. The results of this search indicate that no such identified sites exist vdthin the project area or within a two mile radius of the project. The project will not involve a risk of an explosion or the release ofha?~rdous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions because: (1) the application of mitigation measures from the EIR has conditions of approval; and (2) the application of Action Progams of the Specific Ptan as conditions of approval. Development of the project site may result in increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR for a discussion of this impact. The City has prepared and adopted a Wildfire Management Plan, which future applicants would be required to adhere to. Mitigation measures of the EIR and Action Pro_re'ams of the Specific plan and corresponding conditions of approval that would apply to potential impacts in these areas are as follows: MM3.4/2.0,3.4/3.0, 3.4/5.0 through 3.4/13.0, 3.5/1.0, 3.5/3.0, 3.10/1.0 through 3.10/5.0, 3.10/7.0, 3.11/3.0, 3.11/7.0; SE, 9P and 9Q; Action Pro,ams 8D and 8F through 8J. Inclusion of these mitigation measures will mitigate any impacts of this topic area to an insig-nificant level. (See FEIR, Chapters 3.4 and 3.5.) The Planned Development will not raise any additional significant impacts or require additional mifigationmeasures which were not addressed in the FEIR. NOISE: The noise impacts of potential projects in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area were addressed in the earlier analysis of the Pro,am FEIR. As the project site is basically undevelope~ this time, future development will result in increases of ambient noise over existing levels, resulting in significant impacts in five main areas: 1.) Exposure of Proposed Housing to Future Roadway Noise 2.) Exposure of)Existing Residences to Future Roadway Noise 3.) Exposure of Proposed Residential development to Noise fi-om Future Military Training Activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the County Jail 4.) Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to ConstrucfionNoise 5.) Noise conflicts due to the Adjacency of Diverse Land Uses Permitted by Plan Policies Supporting Mixed-Use Development These impacts are discussed below. 1.) The FEIR addressed the general impacts anticipated from exposure of proposed residential housing along certain roadways, and required that si~maificant impacts be mitigated (See FEIR, Impact 3.10/A, and Mitigation Measure 3.10/1.0). Site specific noise impacts for the Dublin Ranch Area A Planned Development which require evaluation to a greater level of detail for this Planned Development proposal than included in the FEIR are discussed below. The noise contours for the Year 2010 with the buildout of the entire Specific Plan are shown in Fi~ 3.10-B of the Specific Plan EIR. Some areas in Dublin Ranch Area A are proposed with residential development along Fallon Road; these areas' were predicted in the FEIR to be exposed to furore noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. According to the Dublin General Plan Noise Element land use compatibility guidelines, these residential areas would be in the "conditionally acceptable" range for this type of land use. "Conditionally acceptable" means that an acoustical study must be submitted during project development review to determine how interior noise levels will be controlled to the Cir. standards and State goal of CNEL 45 dB. (See Dublin General Plan, page 9.3). Because .the proposed residential housing is w/thin the projected 60 dB Noise contour, acoustical studies w/il be required for such proposed residential land uses to determine the attenuation measures necessary to accomplish an interior noise level standard of CNEL 45 dB, and to ensure that such measures can be physically implemented with the proposed project design. An acoustical study has been submitted w/th the project (Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., April 17, 1997) to determine the areas where noise mitigation measures W/_ll be needed achieve the 45 dB inter/or standards for residential uses within the 60 dB contour. The study determined that the only residences requiring sound attenuation are in Subareas L-6 and L-7. The project will be conditioned 'to provide sound attenuation measures in the development. Noise attenuation measures may inclu& ~eater setback distances, land berms, soundwalls, building construction measures or a combination of these, and may require additional land space for buffers. In some areas, if it is determined upon refinement of development plans that the necessary noise attenuation measures are not physically possible or would be undesirable based upon the proposed land use plan', the physical layout of the residential units may need to be redesigned, or density may need to be decreased, to avoid an unmitigated sign/ficant impact. Additional detailed acoustical studies to identify the attenuation measures necessary to accomplish an interior noise level standard of CNEL 45 dB for residential areas may also be needed at the Site Development Review or building permit stage to demonstrate compliance w/th the FEIR noise mitigation recommendations, or if the noise environment changes or new impacts occur. 2.) The FEIR determined noise generated by the buildout of the Eastern Dublin area would cause ar adverse impact on existing residences which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance and, hence, this was part of the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the CID'. - 3.) The FEIK required mitigation of noise impacts upon proposed residential development from future military training activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the County Jail. An acoustical. study is required for proposed residential development within 6,000 feet of Camp Parks RFTA to determinewhichmitigafionmeasures should be imposed. The acousficalstudy currenflyunderway fo~ the Areas B-E Dublin Ranch project will identify these impacts and conditions of approval may be ar)plied to the Dublin Ranch development where feasible, as required by the FEIK. 4.) Construction will occur over a number of years on the project site. Mai or noise sources associatec with construction include truck activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paxSng and impact noises from barriers used in framing of structures. Pile driving can also generate substmc~noise. These impacts were addressed in the previous analysis of the FEIR, and Mitigation Measures of the FEIK require completion of ConstmctionNoise Management Pro,ams. An example of an undesirable noise attenuation measure might be a requirement to construct a ]2-foot high soundwall for homes too close to a noise source. 19 Implementation of the FEIR mitigation measures (MM # 03. l 0/01-07) will reduce these impacts ?o .a level of insignificance. ~ 5.) When different land use types will occur within the same development, there is a possibility of noise compatibility impacts between adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land uses abut. The only non-residential uses in Area A are the proposed golf course, its associated clubhouse & maintenance facilities, and the private community recreation facility. Due to the location of these facilities and low intensity of expected activities, no significant noise impacts are anticipated fi.om these uses. Based upon this analysis, the environmental impacts of noise related to this project have been addressed both through the earlier analysis of the program FEIR, as well as mifigat, ed to a level of insignificance. A Negative Declaration of environmental impact is appropriate. Public Ser~Sces: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The project will require some of the improvements or service increases in the areas of Fire Protection, Police Protection, school facilities and personnel,, and maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads, and other governmental servicex These services are planned for in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, and are typically funded through a combination of property taxes, assessment districts, and/or special financing plans established, thereby allo~ing future developments to pay (usually placed as a condition of project approval) for their contribution towards these service demands. The applicant's fair share of improvements and increased service will be determined and contained in the Development A~eement required by the Specific Plan. Mifigati~ measures in the EIR that will be implemented as conditions of this project include: MM3.12/5.0; 3.12/8.0; 3.4/2.0; 3.4/4.0/3.4/6.0 through 3.4/13.0; 3.4/15.0 through 3.4/24.0; 3.4/27.0 through 3.4/29.0; 3.4/31.0; 3.4/33.0; 3.4/34.0; 3.4/36.0, 3.4/44.0 and 3.4/49.0. Action Programs of the Specific Plan that will be implemented as conditions of this project include 40, 8A through 8E, 8G, 8H, 8J, 8K and 8N. Inclusion of these mi/igafion measures and Action Programs and corresp_oncli~g conditions of approval will mitigate impacts in this topic area to a level of insignificance. UTILITIES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The extension of water, electrical and natural gas lines into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has been determined by the FEIR to be a significant ~owth-inducing impact and, therefore, was included w/thin the Statement of Overriding Considerations as an unavoidable adverse effect of the project. The Dublin Ranch project, since it is a portion of the Specific Plan area, comes within the purview of the Statement. All other impacts of utilities, such as provision of water service, wastewater service, storm drainage facilities, and solid waste disposal services were found to be capable of reduction to a level ofinsi~ma/ficance by the mitigation measures of the FEIR (please refer to matrix for applicable measures). The pl~n.~ of the City and DSRSD to provide sewer service to furore development within Eastern Dublin were addressed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR and Addendum (dated August 22, 1994). DSRSD has indicated that it still plans to provide sewer service to Eastern Dublin with disposal either via one of the export options analyzed in the 199? EIK for the tong range Wastewater Management Plan for the Livermore-AmadorValley or via ,~' ~oundwaterrecharge and recycling (including reverse osmosis). DSRSD is currently planning the consla-uction of facilifies to In-eat wastewater via reverse osmosis, and these facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve all portions of Eastern Dublin already annexed to DSRSD (including all areas covered by this SpeCific Plan Amendment). The project does not raise any additional significant impacts wkich were not covered by the FEIR AESTHETICS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The FEIR has determined development of Eastern Dublin w~ll inalterably change the rural, a~%nScultural character of the area and, therefore, this is a si_m~ificant unavoidable adverse impact. Visual/aesthetics was part of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. As identified in the Specific Plan EIR, development of the flatter portions of the project area (such as Areas B and C of the Dublin Ranch project site) is regarded as a Irade-offmeasure designed to preserve slopes, hillsides and ridgelines contained in the larger Specific Plan area. The FEIR contains measures to maintain the visual quality of the area, especially from views along scenic corridors in Eastern Dublin. MM 3.8/1.0 through 3.8/8.1 of the ErR address visual resources. Especially pertinent are MM 3.8/7.1 and 3.8/8.1 which call for an area-wide survey of scenic vistas and project by project visual analysis to show conformity with the study. In April of 1996 the City adopted a Scenic Corridor Plan as a requirement of Pro,am 6Q of the adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Identified scenic corridors include Tassajara Road, 1-580, and Fallon Road. The intent of the policies and standards of the Scenic Corridor Plan is to allow project development as shown in the Specific Plan to occur while mainta/ning the visual character of the eastern ridgelines, watercourses, and distinct landscape features, for travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Dublin. In addition to impacts upon scenic corridors, potential visual impacts could result from the grading of slopes and the location of homes proposed in Area A, and their visibility from scenic corridors as well as public gathering places (such as the park site in Dublin Ranch Phase I). A visual study has been prepared to analyze potential visual impacts from the development proposed with this project and to demonstrate the refinements ha project desig~n which MI1 help address impacts upon visual resources. As required by the adopted FEIR mitigation monitoring pro,am, the project will be r~quired to institute sensitive ~m-ading and contouring of the project development to the natural landform. This requirement will be applied continually at various project entitlement stages, such as ~ading penait, subdivisionmap approval, and site developmentreview. : No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final ErR are expected to occur as a result of the proposed Plarmed Development_ CULTURAL t:[ESOURCES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The project will not result in the alteration of or the destruction of any prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. The project does not have the potential to cause a physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric, historic or architecturally significant building structure or object. The project will not restrict existing reli~ous or sacred uses ~Sthin the potential impact area. M/tigation Measures of the FEIR and an Action Program of the Specific Plan will be incorporated as conditions of approval of this project, to reduce any potential impacts in this topic area to a level ofinsi~i~icance. Those Mitigation Measures and Action Pro,am are as follows: 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/12.0 and 21 REC~E^T~ON: These imms were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. Policies in the General Plan and Specific Plan require that development its fair share of costs to maintain the same levels of recreational services presently in place in City. In lieu park dedication fees will be paid, and/or park site(s) will be dedicated, to mitigate the Dublin Ranch Area A impact on the City's recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures of the FEIR, Action Pro,ams of the Specific Plan and corresponding conditions of approval that would apply in this topic area include: 3.4/20.0 through 3.4/36.0; 3.7/10.0, 3.7/13.0; 6A, 6B, 6G, and 9V. Inclusion of these mifigaton measures will reduce any recreational impacts of the project to an insig~a/ficant level. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sig-nificant effect on the environmenk and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a siguificant 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 fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) 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 attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially si_maificant impact" or "potentially si~maificant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially si~ificant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and Co) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, and/or through revisions, conditions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project (unavoidable si_maificant adverse effects of the project have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations done for the pr%m~n EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, of which this project is a part). Signature ~-~,~ ~_./~ Date Printed Name Tasha Huston Title Associate Planner 23 ATTACHMENT A MATRIX OF MITIGATION MlgASURES OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN / GENERAL PLAN AMENDNIENT Em (Incorporated by reference; available at City of Dublin, 1 O0 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA 94568 510-833-65J O) EXHIBITS A-2 through A-5: Noise Study Visual Study Traffic Study Biological Study (Not attached, but available for review at the City of Dublin Planning Department and at City Council public hearing)