Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 140-97 NegDecl DubRan B-ERESOLUTION NO. 140 - 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR DUBLIN RANCH AREAS B THROUGH E PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 96-039) WltEREAS, the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment ("GPA") and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan ("EDSP") were adopted by the City in 1993; and WItEREAS, 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 WltE~AS, 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 WItEREAS, 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 Wlt-EREAS, Ted Fairfield, representing property owner Jennifer Lin, submitted a Planned Development (PD) District Rezone request (PA 96-039 Dublin Ranch Areas B-E) for rezoning an approximately 453-acre site to the following land uses: PD Medium Density Residential (78.8 acres; 958 dwelling units); PD Medium-High Density Residential (8.6 acres; 172 dwelling units); PD High Density Residential (23.6 acres; 744 dwelling units); PD Medium Density Residential/Community Park (13.0 acres; 156 units potentially); PD Rural Residential/Agriculture (99.2 acres, 1 dwelling); PD General Commercial (41.2 acres); PD Campus Office (44.6 acres); Community Park (84.8 acres); PD Open Space (32.4 acres); Neighborhood Square [an Open Space Use] (2.0 acres); Elementary School (partial site, 4.4 acres); High School (partial site, 20.0 acres). These land uses are proposed to accommodate future development of up to 1,875 dwelling units in 11 neighborhoods, commercial and office development, recreational uses, 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 WItEREAS, a complete application for the project is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WItEREAS, the City has prepared an 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 0VIMP); 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 Wl~EREAS, the Initial Study demonstrated 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 WHEREAS, a 30 day public review period was held for the Negative Declaration, from June 18, 1997, through July 18, 1997; and WltEREAS, no letters commenting on the Negative Declaration were received during the comment period; and WllEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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 NOW, Tmr, REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT ~ City Council hereby finds that: 1. The foregoing recitals are tree 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 EIIL the Project and all of its potentially significant environmental impacts were adequately described and analyzed in the EIR, the Project incorporates all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Program EI~R, 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 EIR which would require major revisions in the Program EIP-q 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 EI~ 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 EIR or, (ii) that them 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. 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 O) hereby approves the Negative Declaration. 5. The City Council does hereby applythe adopted Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program to the Project, along with the conditions made a pa~t 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. NOW, TltEREgORE, BE IT FIJRTI{ER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the General PlanfF. astem Dublin Specific Plan Amendment for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E PD Rezone for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the goals, general provisions and purpose of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan as proposed to be amended herein; and The Amendments are appropriate for the subject property in terms of land use compatibilities; will not overburden public services; and provides a comprehensive plan for development of the site while preserving portions of the site for open space; and The changes to the EDSP will provide new land use designations as reflected on the Areas B through E Land Use and Development Plan/District Plan Development Plan (LUDP/DPDP), included as attachment D to the staff report, to assist development in Eastern Dublin. Changes to the land uses on the LUDP/DPDP are appropriate based upon the analysis contained in the staff report, will provide a better configuration and long-term development pattern, and will help implement policies of the General Plan and EDSP regarding development in Eastern Dublin 4. The Amendments will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements. AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None K2 /G/1 l~18-9 7/reso l-b. doc ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 18th day of November, 1997, by the following vote: Councilmembers Ba~wes, Burton, Howard, Loclchart and Mayor Houston EXHIBIT A-1 Initial Study and Negative Declaration INITI.A_L STUDY "DUBLIN RANCH .AREAS B, C, D, & E "- Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment Planning Application # 96-039 INTRODUCTION This Initial Study has been prepared by the City of Dublin to assess the potential environmental effects of the proposed Dublin Ranch "Areas B through E" Planned Development Rezoning (the project). The analysis is intended to satisfy the requirements of the Califomia 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 EnvironmentaI Impact Report, dated August 28, 1992; Responses to Comments Part I dated De'c~mber 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, 1992 (SCHg1103064)] was adopted by the City Council on May 10, 1993. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEI_K) is available to the public for review of the City of Dublin Planning Department located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. An AddenduTM to the Environmental Impact Report was approved by the City Council on August 22, 1994. It is also available for review of the Planning Depmhnent. The Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR concluded certain siguificant 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. The environmental impact report that was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan was a "Program" environmental impact report (Program EIR). Ifa program environmental impact report is prepared, subsequent environmental documents need to be prepared for projects within the program 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 insi~maificance by mitigation measures of the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and conditions of approval of the project. Dublin Ranch "Areas B through E" is located within the boundaries of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area and' is considered one in a series of actions covered by the Program EIR. The project is within the scope of the Program EIR, and the program EIR & Addendum adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no changes or new information which would necessitate supplementing the Program EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA guidelines Section 15162. · This Initihl 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 Study 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 Malrix has been desired for use in evaluating specific project proposals in Eastern Dublin for compliance with the Eastern Dublin Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 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 Pro,ams, or refer to the FEIR itself for complete mitigation descriptions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project is 'known as the "Dublin Ranch Areas B, C, D, & E "- Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Eastern~' Dublin Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment. This proposal for a Planned Development (PD) Rezoning is the second Phase ofrezoning for the Dublin Ranch project site; aPD Rezoning for Phase I of Dublin Ranch was approved by the City in 1996. Current PD Rezoning applications occupy approximately 816 acres of land and are composed of five separate parts, labeled Areas A, B, C, D, and E. This environmental review combines Areas B through E into one component. The environmental review for Area A is being processed separately. The project site for Areas B-E is located east of Tassajara Road, north ofi-580, and is west of the southern portion of Fallon Road (existing), but will occupy land on both the east and west sides of Fallon Road when this road is extended to the north (future). 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 finalize the zoning for the project area. The land uses proposed unde. r this LUDP are consistent xvith 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. Areas B through E primarily occupy the southern areas of the Dublin Ranch project site, and are proposed for a variety of land use types, including office, commercial, medium and high-density residential, schools, parks, open space and rural residential/a~icultural uses. Because these areas do not include traditional Iow-density residential development plans, the Land Use and Development Plan for these areas are desigued with less detail in some areas (e.g. residential Iot sizes) in order to provide the true flexibility of a Planned Development zone, as provided by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use categories for these areas include listings of the appropriate uses for each zone, development standards, and conditions by which future subdivisions and development entitlement requests will be evaluated. The development concepts for Areas B through E are discussed below. Area B is the residential portio.~tains a community park; Area C, includes commercial and office designated land; Area D includes Rural R ~¢-gi~ 'dentiaiY~A~iculture and community park land; and Area E comprises portions of two school sites. Area B consist.s.o~1983 dCeilings units of which 1062 are designated Medium Density Residential, 172 Medium High Density and 748- .,.----/-High. Density. The Medium Density would be detached or attached units on individual parcels at densities of 8 - 14 units per acre while the Medium High Density and High Density units would be apartments and/or condominiums at densities of 20 to 35 dwelling units per acre. This area totals 136.2 acres. Area B also contains a 41.3 acre community park, 2 acre neighborhood square and 38.4 acres of open space. Area C consists of 41 acres designated General Commercial and 44.4 acres of Campus Office. Area C includes the proposed land use change for 4.5 acres of land previously designated for Residential use, to be changed to General Commercial in compliance with Livermore Airport Protection Area restrictions. Areas B and C are located immediately north ofi-580 and west of Fallon Road and its future extension. Area D is 92.1 acres of Rural Residential/Agriculture land and a 32.8 acre community park located approximately 9000 feet north ofi-580 and 700 east of Tassajara Road. It will remain virmalty undeveloped. Area E is one half(5.4 acres) of an elementary school site located on the eastern boundary of the Dublin Ranch property and the portion (20.6 acres) of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan high school site located on Dublin Ranch, Additional information and details regarding the project can be found in the attached Project Description, which follows the Initial Study. 2 ENWIROI~WIENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This stud}' was prepared based upon the location of the project, staff, office review, review, comments submitted by field 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 FEIK 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 Areas B - E will not create any significant impacts not already covered by the EIR. Impacts of the project are described below. Project title: Dublin Ranch Areas B, C, D, & E - Planned Development (PD) Rezoning and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment/General Plan Amendment 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 3. Contact person and phone number: Tasha Huston, Associate Planner; (510)833-6610 .. o 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, ,tal., P.O. Box 1148, 5510 Sunol Boulevard, Pleasanton, CA 94566 General plan: Rural Residential/A~iculture; Medium Density Residential; Medium-High Density Residential; High Density Residential; General Commercial; Campus Office; Community Park; Neighborhood Square; Open Space 10. Zoning: PD Rural Residential/Agriculture; PD Medium Density Residential; PD Medium-High Density Residential; PD High Density Residential; PD General Commercial; PD Campus Office; PD Community Park; PD Neighborhood Square; PD Open Space Description of project: The Planned Development (PD) District Rezone proposed for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E site includes land use designations, standards, residential densities, and design guidelines for each-l~d use category, including Rural Residential/A~iculture; Medium Density Residential; Medium-High Density Residential; High Density Residential; General Commercial; Campus Office; Community Park; Neighborhood Square; and Open Space. Area C includes the proposed land use change for 4.5 acres of land previously designated for Residential use, to be changed to General Commercial in compliance with Livermore Airport Protection Area restrictions. The development proposed for Areas B through E will occupy the southern areas of the Dublin Ranch project site, and will include a variety of land use types, including office, commercial, medium and hi*~h-density residential, schools, parks, open space and rural residential/a~icultural uses. Because these · areas do not include traditional low-density residential development, the Land Use and Development Plan for these areas are desi~maed with less detail in some areas (e.g. residential lot sizes) in order to provide the lrue flexibility of a Planned Development zone, as provided by the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. The Land Use categories for these areas include listings of the appropriate uses for each zone, development standards, and conditions by which future subdivisions and development entitlement requests will be evaluated. Surrounding land uses and setting: Planned Development Single Family, Medium Density Residential, Open Space, and Rural Residential/Agriculture; Cattle Grazing, A~iculture, Equestrian Facility, and Firewood Sales Other public agencies whose approval is required · None E:',-I-iRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL~kLLY AFFECTED: 2"ne environmental factors checked below would be potent/aIly affected by this project, involving ~' one impact that is a "Potentially SigniScant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following t~ Land Use and P]annin~ ~ Population and Housin2 [] G¢oJo~ical Problems i~ Water 1~ .~J.r Quaiib' 12I Tra.nspormti on/Circul ati on 1D Biological Resources Ener=oy and Mineral Resources. Noise [] Public Sen'ices ID Utilities and Serv/ce Systems ID Aesthetics i~I Cultural Resources [] Recreation t'-] Mandatory Findings of Significance E.N-vTRO1N¢~IENTAL IMPACTS CHECKLIST I. L,¥D USE A1N~ PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source ~: 1, 2 ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by ~encies with jurisdiction over the project? (1, 2 ) c) Be incompatible Mth existing land use in the vicinity? ( 1, 2 ) d) .affect a=~iculmral 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 low-income or minority, community)? ~. ?OPLrL_~TION .4NI) F[OUSLNG. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (I) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or ex-tension of major infrastructure)? (1) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (I) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. FFould rhe proposal result in or expose people to potential impaczs involving: J~ otentialt), Signi. ficz~t Potenti~ll3. $igni. t~cw:t Unle.~s Jncorp~r~ted [] [] · [] [] [] [] [] [] a) Fault rupture? (I, 3 ) b) Seismic ~ound shaking? (l, 3 ) c) Seismic ~ound failure, including liquefaction? (I, 3 ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic b~7~rd? (1, 3 ) e) Landslides or mudflows? (1, 3 ) ~' Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, gmading, or fill? (1, 3 ) g) Subsidence oftand? (1, 3 ) h) Expansive soils? (1, 3 ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (1, 3 ) [] [] D [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] D [] [] [] 5 IV. WATER. I(;ould the proposal result h~: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rote and amount of surface runoff?. (l) [] b) Exposure of people or property to water relined hazards such as flooding? (l) [] c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water qualily (e.g., temperature, dissolved o~en or turbidiD,? (l) 1"] d) Changes in the amount of surface wmer in any water body? (1) [] e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (1) [] f) Change in the quantity of~ound waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of~oundwater [] recharge capability? (1) · g) Altered direction or rate of flow of~oundwater? (l) I-1 h) Impacts to g-roundwater quality? (1) [] i) Substantial reduction in the am0unI of~oundwmer othem'ise available for public water supplies? (1) [] V. _~[R QUA_LITe. ~'ould the proj>osal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (1, 2 ) [] b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (1, 2 ) [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause an), change in etimate? (1, 2 ) [] d) Create'objectionable odors? (1, 2 ) [] 'VI. TR_&NSP ORTATI ON/CIR CUI~TI ON. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion7 (1, 2, 4 ) r'~ b) ~I~/7flrds tO safety from desi~o-n_ features (e=.=., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm [] equipment)? (I, 2, 4 ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (1, 2, 4 ) [] d) Insufficient parking capacity onsim or offsite? (l, 2, 4 ) [] e) hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (], 2, 4 ) [] f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bm turnouts, bicycle racks)? (1, 2, 4 ) [] g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (l) [] Signi. ficam 3 tnigation Incorporated Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ko lmI~oct [] [] [] [] [] VII. BIOLO GIC.~L RESOIIRCES. Would the proposal result in impacts a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not Iimited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (]) b) Locally designmed species (e.g., heritage trees)? (1) c) Locally desig-nated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1) d) Wetland habita.c (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pooI)? (1) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (I) VEff. ENERGY .~.N~D 1Vi~EtL6_L RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans ? (l, 2 ) b) Use nora-chewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Resuk in the loss ofavailabiliD' ora lmown mineral resource thru would be of~mre value 'co the region and the residenzs of the State? 12K. ]Tc/~Z.a~R.DS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk o£accidentaI explosion or release o£hazardous substances (including, bm not Iimited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (I) b) Possible interference with an eme~ency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (I) c) The creation of any health ti~7~ard or potential health haT_~rds? (1) d) . Exposure of people to ex/sting sources of potential health h_uv~rds? -(]) e) Increased :fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or ~ees? (1) JC NOISE. Would ~he proposal result in: a) Lncreases in ex/sting noise levels? (l, 2, 5 ) b) Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? (1, 2, 5 ) $ignifir. m~r Unle.~ Mitigation [] [] [] A'~ Jm;~acl [] [] X~. ?UBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal result in a need for new or altered go~ernmen! services in an.), of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (1) b) Police protection? (1) c) Schools? (1) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (1) e) Other government services (1) X~II. DZ['II.ITIES _4~N~D SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alzerations to the following uziliries: a) Power ornamral gas? (1,2) b) Communications systehas? (1, 2 ) c) Local or regional water ~eatment or distribution facilities? (1, 2 ) d) sewer or septic ranks? (1, 2 ) e) Storm water d~inage? (1', 2 ) f) Solid waste disposal? (1, 2 ) g) Local or regional water supplies? (1, 2 ) AqTL _4dESTtq~-TICS. Would the proposat: a) A_fleet a scenic vista or highway? (1; 2 ) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? (1, 2 ) c) Create light or glare? (1, 2 ) X~V. CULTU'R_4~ I>~ESOI.rRCES. 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) R-~riel existing mligious or sa~d uses within the potential impact ar,~? (1) X-V. lv,.ECR_E_&TION. Would the proposal: a) increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (1) b) .~ffem ex/sting recreational opportunities? (1) Significant Iron, oct Potcmioll)' Significant Jditigation lncorIaorat~d [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ]~'o [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] X~'-I. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC.&NCE. c) d) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat o~[ 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 or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plan~ or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehisto~,? Does the project have potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long'term, em, ironmental goals? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerablo? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects ora 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) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] I~1 [] DISCUSSION - Mandatory Findings of Sig-nifieance a) As indicated by the chec 'klist form, the project will not de_m-adc the quality o£the em, ironment, substantially reduce the habitat of a plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of California histo~' or prehistory. b) All potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to reduce both the long term and the short term environmental impacts.be]ow a level ofsig-nificance except for those impacts inctud.ed within the StatemenI of Overriding'Considerations of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan EIR. A des_cription of the mitigation measures is contained in the Matr/x, Attachment A. c) All potentially si~maificant cumulative environmental impacts have been addressed in the ElK. 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. P, zEFERENCES Referenced information sources utilized for tkis analysis include the follov~fng: l) 2) 4) 7) Determ~nationbased on to~fion of project; Determinationbased on staffoffice review--, Determinationbased on field re¼ew; Determinationbased on the City of Dubl/.u General Plan; Determinationbased on the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance; Determ/nafion b~ed on the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan F~al EIK and Addendum; Not applicable. i) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "bio 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 fall: 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 construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an ElK is reqUired. 4) 5) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "PotentiaIty Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVH, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses ma), be used where, pursuant to the tiering, prograrn EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). ). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier anab'ses and state where they are available for review. ~¢~ b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Si_maificant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the miti_gation measures which are incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the ex'tent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies 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 subsumtiated. 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) This is only a suggesmd form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. 10 ENVIRONMENTAl, CHECKLIST RESPONSES & ANALYSIS The following discussion includes explanations of answers to the above questions regarding potential environmental 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 within 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 EIK & addendum adequately describe the impacts of the project, and there have been no changes or new information requiring a supplemental EIK, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. E3E[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. POTElxrlIAL IlvfPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: L.~I) USE & PLANNING: The project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations and wit~ the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Environmental impacts from the project land uses were addressed in the earlier analysis of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan / General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Cumulative impacts to %oricultuml 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 FEIK. The development proposed for Areas B through E includes a small (4.5 acre) portion of land wkich ~ proposed for a land use amendment from Medium Density Residential to General Commercial. T5 adopted Specific Plan anticipated such an amendment, because the area is located within the Livermo] Airport Protection Area and residential uses in that area were viewed as potentially incompatible. Ti proposed land use is consistent with the closest adjacent non-residential urban use. The magnitude ar intensity of development that could occur if the amendments are adopted are substantially consistent wi: the development envisioned for the Specific Plan. The Planned Development also includes adjusunents to land uses previously approved. In terms , residential uses, the unit count proposed for this project involves an increase over the number of un~ projected by the Specific Plan for the Dublin Ranch lands, based upon the midpoint of the range. T~ increase is due primarily to a gain of land for residential uses in various areas, such as 10 acres previou., designated for an elementary school site (no longer needed), and several acres previously designated J the Community Park (size of park has decreased). However, the total unit count for the Dublin Ran project is still well within the maximum of the range of units shown for the residential land use areas Dublin Ranch under the adopted Specific Plan. In terms ofnon-residentialland uses, the proposed proj ll involves a shift of $ acres from the General Commercial designation to the Campus Office designation. The shift would translate into a decrease of approximately 83,000 square feet of commercial space ar n increase of 130,000 square feet of office space. The proposed shifts do not involve an increase in~l~e overall acreage of these two land use designations, and office uses typically generate less traffic than do commercial uses. The modifications would result in a long-term development pattern consistent with the Specific Plan, which anticipated flex/bility in the development of these areas (see EDSP, Chapter 4.5 Commercial Land Use). Therefore these shifts are considered substantially in compliance w/th the Specific Plan. As such, any impacts that may ar/se were anticipated in the previous analyses of the adopted EIR. Finally, potential land use incompafibilitiesfor the proposed project were analyzed for the adopted plan. The focus of potential incompatibilitiesis on the pro 'ximity of residential to non-residential uses, where incompafibilityissues can exist in many areas, including: noise, odor, light and glare, an.d visual impacts. The proposed land uses represent the same mix and adjacent uses as those adopted for the Specific Plan. Through the Site Developmentpermit, the City analyzes all of the issues mentioned above and consults with other agencies, as necessary, for m 'aking further conditions of the project. In addition, the project concepts address buffers and design solutions to address the interface of potentially incompatible adjacent uses. These concepts will be applied where needed as development standards to address potential impacts. The proposed Planned Development Rezoning will not raise si~ificant new impacts beyond those discussed in the FEIK. POPULATION & HOUSING: The project would provide up to 1,983 units in Areas B through E, of various unit types, many of which are anticipated to be in a price range affordable to the furore employees wot 'ldng within the City of Dublin. This is consistent with the policies of the Eastern Dubl~ Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan, to provide a range of housing types for all 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 EIR. The adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan signified the City's intent to introduce urban development in an area that previously supported primarily rural activities. Please refer to the earlier finalysis of the FEIR, pp. 3.2-1 through 3.24 1, for a discussion of population and housing provision. No si~ificant impacts not previously anal3'zed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur. 'GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. For an explanation of items 3a, 3c, 3g, and 3i, 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 MM 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, Be.r. logar Geotechnical Consultants; for item.~ 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 'known 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 will reduce but not completely eliminate ali hazards associated with ~oundshaking. 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 FEIR, and through various mitigafi~,~ measures. The project site is located in an area of minimal ~oundwaterrecharge and ~oundwater reserves and the majority of the Tri-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 ~o an increase in imper~,ious surfaces within the project site. However, impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur. The project ~.511 result in the reali~munent and re-creation of an intermittent stream. A streambed alteration ~oreement 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 trainee plan for the entire project site v,511 be prepared, therefore, any changes to drain~e patterns will be fully evaluated to ensure there are not significant environmental 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 NPDES permittingpro~ams, and the FEIR contains several mitigation measures which will be applied to this project, any water impacts will be mitigated to a level ofinsigrfificance. Please see lx~vl 3.5/25.0 through 3.5/52.0. Action Pro~m'am~ of the Specific Plan also mitigate these impacts. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR for a discussion of this impact. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA FEIP,. are expected to occur. .&IR QUALITY: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through variou mitigation measures. Construction-related air quality impacts include short-term violation of adopte standards or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, and could result in exposure sensitive receptors to pollutants. Development of the project site will also result in traffic-relined aJ quality impacts. The FEIR developed mitigation measures to reduce mobile and stationary source emissions. Air quality mitigation measures of the FEIR which w/Il 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 mitigation measures cannot achieve the reduction ia stationary source emissions needed to meet the in.qignificantthreshold. The Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR indicates that stationary source emissions air quality impacts remain signifi .cant and, therefore, this nnmitigable impact was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No impacts not previously anal)zed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Pinal EIR are expectedto occur from this proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The impacts to la-anaportation and circulation were addressed in th earlier analysis of the FEtR, and thro ~ugh various mitigation measures. The FEIR indicates four traffic/circulation impacts which are not capable of mitigation to a level of insignificance. Two of then: affect intersections and the other two the general operation ofi-580. Cumulative impacts affecting 1-58 would occur irrespective of development under the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. These four impacts have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the Specific Plan. A tmf55c analysis conducted for the proposed Planned Development Rezone (7'JJIM,, 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. required by the traffic study, the mitigation measures of the FEIS[, and conditions of the PD Rezone approval. Many of these measures wi_ii be completed as part of the project, while others will be' cumulative improvements to which the project developers w/il contribute. With implementation of the improvements required to address traffic impacts ~om the project, the potential impacts will be mitigated to a level of in.~iguificance. No new mitigation measures are required. 13 Pomntial impacts of hazards to safe~ from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) I incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); inadequate emergency access or access to nearb~e insufficient parking capacity on- or off-site were identified in the FEIR. All projects must go through a si~ development process prior to approval and are required to meet all City zoning standards. Because of n~ combination of land uses future developments will be required to meet the City zoning standards for eac ,use. No mitigation measures are required. Impacts from 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 pedestrian and bicycle crossing mai or roadwfiys. This impact can be mitigated with FEIR Mitigation Measure 3.3/16.1, which requires the location of pedestrian & bicycle paths to cross major arterial streets at signalized intersections, to provide safe crossing. Several pedestrian and bicycle routes are proposed with the project, including a multi-use trail, which will include crossings at these signalized intersections. 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 Programs 5A throu~h 5D. Implementation o£these mitigation measures will reduce a majority of the traffic-relatedimpacts to a level of insignificance. The Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR indicates that some impacts (both project-specific and cumulative) remain potentially significant even after kaplementation of proposed mitigationmeasures. Please refer to the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR for a complete listing. Aside from the traffic related impacts noted above, the Project will not raise ~ new significant traffic impacts which have not already been evaluated in the previous environmental~ analyses done for the proposed development. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Impacts from the project upon biological resources were thoroughly addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and various mitigation measures will apply to the project. For complete descriptions of existing corlditions, maps and other information identi~ing such impacts picky, se consult the FEIR. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project wi/1 normally have a sigrfificant effect on the. environment flit 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.) Botan/cally Sensitive Habitats; c.) WildtifeResources; 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 w/th introduced annual grasses and does not provide unusual or kigJa 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 Pro_m-am (see Matrix for listing of mitigation measures.) Several mitigation measures and programs apply to the project site, and involve further studies and pre- construction surveys of the project site. Six separate plant and animal surveys o£ the project site were conducted by H. T. Harvey and Associates over the past six years. These surveys have been instrumental in setting parameters for site desi~_~n. The topics of the surveys and the applicabilit3, of the reports to fine individual project components areas arc described below in excerpts taken from a summm]. of fine surveys provided by H. T. Han, ey and Associates, August 30, 1996. U.S. AR.M'Y CORPS OF ENGINEERS JlfRISDICTIONALANALYSIS Most of the site has been intensively gazed, the drainage network and its component channel have become incised and arroyos have formed. Areas meeting fine technical criteria for identification as jurisdictional wetlands were delineated primarily along site drainageways and in seeped zones in the Tassajara Creek watershed. RARE PLANT 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 (CNI)DB). 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 site that had been identified by Biosystems Analysis in the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan ElK 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 biolo~sts 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 fine pair probably bred at an alternative nest site (or nest sites) offthe property because the nest tree they had been using (a Eucalyptus tree) was largely defoliated during an extended hard ~eeze during fine winter o: 1990-1991. In 1993, the foliage returned to the nest tree and so did the pair. The birds successfully fledged one young tSom 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 closer 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 1996. 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 t994) has completely collapsed and should no longer be considered an active nest site. SLLMMAR. Y OF KIT FOX SURVEYS IN CONTRA COSTA AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES ~ H.T. Harvey and Associates has 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 recent surveys for kit foxes were reviewed, as well as historic surveys conducted by the Department ofFish and Game. Historic range maps were also reviewed. The report concludes that negative results of more than 10 years of surveys in the Dublin area leaves little 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 ex~pansion by the 'kit fox into the Dublin area extremely remote. SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX The San Joaquin kit fox a federal endangered and state 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 surveys 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 EIR by Biosystems Analysis. H.T. Harvey & Associates conducted kit fox surveys at twice the intensity recommended at that time (I99I) by California Department offish and Game guidelines. These surveys (September-October 199I) did not detect kit fox activity on or near the Ranch. SPECIAL STATUS AMP~BIAN AND 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 Livennore and Dubli{n. The focus of these surveys included California tiger salamander (~tmbystoma californienxe), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and Southwestern pond turtlg (Clemmys marmoratapaltida). No California 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 5ridings were consistent with the 1989 surveys conducted by Biosystems for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR_ 1995 SPECLAL-STATUS A_MPHIBLAN 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-status reptiles and amphibians had changed. These surveys were initiated in a rainfall season (1994-1995) that was nearly 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 grazing management 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 site (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 boundary near Fallon Road. Two western pond turtles were detected along Tassajara Creek. The location and abundance of the Califorrfia red-legged frog and western pond turtle have been consistent throughout three separate studies. Based on the sampling from 1989, 1993 and 1995, the project site does not support a breeding population of California Tiger salamanders. DUBLIN RANCH FAIRY SHRIMP SURVEYS Small, claypan 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 shams 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 low diversity of invertebrates and contained such weedy, oppommisfic species as mosquito larvae and midgefly larvae. .APPLICABILITY OF REPORTS TO AREAS B THROUGH E OF THE PROJECT AREA The studies conducted by H.T. Harvey and Associates 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. .Area B includes two jurisdictional drainages and associated wetlands, part of the acreage noted in the wetland delineation described above. Additionally, California Red-legged frogs have been found in a pond in Area B. .Area C includes seasonal ponds that are jurisdictional. Repeated surveys for California tiger salamanders, special status plants or special stares invertebrates have all had negative results, as described above. Area D includes a drainage to Tassajam Creek and associated wetlands that are]urisdicfional as described in the wetland delineation noted above. The golden eagle nest sites that have been-morfitored are included in area D, and the majority of the viewshed for the eagle nest is within the area. A pond associated w/th the upper end of this drainage also supports California Red-legged frogs, a species federally listed as threatened. The San Joaquin kit fox surveys, wetland delineation, special stares plant surveys and herpetological surveys described above apply to all of areas B, C, D & E. The fairy shrimp surveys apply to Area C, although other areas were searched for suitable habitat. The golden eagle nest surveys apply to .Area D. The Golden Eagle nest site is not w/thin the project area. However, a line-of-sight buffer area around the nest has been incorporated into the planning for Area A to rn~nirn~Tg intrusion into the buffer area. MITIGATION The Mitigation Measures adopted w/th the City's approved Mitigation Monitoring Pro,am, and corresponding conditions of approval, have been included in the proj eot planning to protect an), 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.?/28.0. Policies of the Specific Plan cai1 for enhancement of open space area and riparian corridor w/th native plant species. 17 Although the FEIR did not identify the site as having any endangered species of plant or animal lif certain Mitigation Measures of the FEIR and Action Programs. of the Specific Plan (Action Pro~ 6A, 6C, and 60) require certain investigations and protocols prior to issuance ora building penn/t, and these have been included for ti-tis project. The FEIR discusses impacts to riparian and other wetland habitats, and finds that mitigation measures could not completely reduce the cumulative loss o£sensitive habitat to a level of insignificance. The adopted statement of overriding considerations includes this finding. The proposed Planned Development does not raise any new si~maificant 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-renewalresources (for the Specific Plan area as a whole) was identified as a significant cumulative impact (discussed under section XII), future development of the site is not anticipated to use such resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Therefore, this topic area was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. No mineral resources are known to exist on-site, therefore no impacts are anticipated. The proposed Conditional Use Permit will not result in any additional siguificant impacts not covered by the FEIR. H_4zaP,.DS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The project site is primarily open grasslands and contains no structures. A Phase II site assessment of the project area has been conducted (~erlogar 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 alist of hazardous waste and substance sites. The results ofth~s search indicate that no such identified sites exist within the project area or within ~ two mile radius of the project. AlthougJa it is not 'known at this time what future tenants may occupy lands in Areas B through E currently designated for commercial and industrial uses, future residents may keep small quantifies of potentially toxic substances on-site (paints, pesticides, etc.). Due to the normally small quantities, this is not anticipated Co create a substantial risk that substances and materials stored or used on site will create or expose people to health hazards. Development projects (those proposing non-residential uses) are n6rmally conditioned by the City and/or applicable health departments and fire departments to submit information regarding chemicals to be used and/or stored on-site. Therefore, it is anticipated that buildout of the proposed project would result in a less than signifi cant impact No further mitigation is required. The project will not involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous 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 Pro~am~ of the Specific Plan as conditions ~ approval. Finally, 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. This 7_5 impact was addressed in the prior EIR.. The City has'prepared and adopted a Wildfire Management Plm which future applicants would be requ/red to adhere to. No further mitigation is required. Mitigation measures of the EIR and Action Programs of the Specific plan and corresponding conditions of approval that would apply to potemial impacts in these areas are as follows: MM3.4/2.0,3.4/3.0, 3.4/5.0 ttlrough 3.4/13.0, 3.5/1.0, 3.5/3.0, 3.10/1.0 througJrt 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 gF through 8J. Inclusion of these mitigation measures Mll mitigate any impacts of this topic area to an insignificant level. (See FEIR, Chapters 3.4 and 3.5.) The Planned Development will not raise any additional significant b~z~rds impacts which were not addressed in the FEIR. NoIsz: 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 basicalIyundeveloped at 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 Acfixfifies at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area and the County Jail 4. Exposure of Existing and Proposed Residences to ConstructionNoise 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 fi-om exposure of proposed residential housing. along certain roadways, and required that sign(ficant impacts be mitigated (See FEIR, Impact 3.10/A, and MifigationMeasure 3.10/1.0). Site specific noise impacts for the Dublin Ranch Areas B-E Planned Development which require evaluation to a ~eater level of detail for this Planned Development propos~ than included in the FEIK are discussed below. The noise contours for the Year 2010 with the buildout of the entire Specific Plan are shown in Figure 3.10-B of the Specific Plan El/{. Proposed residential housing in certain areas (e.g.: along Dublin Boulevard, Tassajara Road, Fallon Road, and Hacienda Drive) were predicted in the FEIR to be exposed t. future noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. In addition, proposed housing along Central Park~'ay (Transit Spine) and Gleason Road could potentially be exposed to future 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 wiIl be conu'olled to the City standards and State goal of CNEL 45 dB (See Dublin General Plan, p~e 9.3). Because the Dublin Ranch development proposes residential development in areas projected to exceed the 60 dB Noise levels, acoustical studies are required to determine the attenuation measures necessary to accomplish an interior noise level standard of CN-EL 45 dB. An acoustical study is currently underway to analyze areas expected to eXceed the 60 dB noise levels and to determine the appropriate noise barriers/buffers which are needed to achieve the 65 dB interior standards for residential uses. ' e results ofth/s study will be submitted prior to approval of the PD Rezoning for Areas B-E, and the~ ' project will be conditioned to incorporate these measures in the development. Noise attenuation measures may include ~eater setback distances, land berms, soundwalls, building construction measures or a combination of these, and may require additional space for buffers. In some areas, if it is determined upon refinement of development plans that the necessary noise attenuation measures are not possible or would be undesirable based upon the proposed land use plan*, the physical layout of the residential units may need to be redesi~maed, or density may need to be decreased, to avoid an unmitigated significant 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 be needed at the Site Development Review or building permit stage to demonstrate compliance with 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 an adverse impact on existing residences which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance and, hence, this was part of the Statement of Overt/ding Considerations adopted by the Dublin City Council. 3.) The FEIR 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 st~, is required for proposed residential development within 6,000 feet of Camp Parks RFTA to determine ~ which mitigafi on measures should be imposed. The acoustical study currently underway for the Dublin Ranch B-E project will identify these impacts and conditions of approval may be applied to the development where feasible, as required by the FEIR. 4.) Constructionwill occur over a number of years on the project site. Majornoise sources associated wlth construcfioninclude track activity on local roads, heavy equipment used in grading and paving and impact noises from barriers used in flaming ofstrncmres. Pile driving can also generate subsmacmral noise. These impacts were addressed in the previous analysis of the FEIR, and Mitigation Measures of the FEIR require completion of ConstrucfionNoise Management Programs. Implementation of the FEIR mifigationmeasures (MM # 03.10/01-07) will reduce these impacts to a level ofinsig:nificance. 5.) The presence of different land use Erpes within the same development creates the possibility of noise compafibilityimpacts betWeen adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land uses abut. The Uniform Building Code does not specifically address the sound insulation requirement for partitions between business and residential uses. Sound insulation for such partitions should be desig-ned on a case by case basis and may need to exceed those required between residences. Because the allowance of mixed use developments (commercial and residential in the same build/ng or project site) requires a Conditional use Permit, the issue of sound insulation between business and residential uses will be addressed through a condition of the Planned Development approval, with refined studies to be undertaken at the time of Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit approval, when specific development proposals ~ An example of an undesirable noise attenuation measure might be a requirement to construct a J 2- foot high soundwall for homes too close to a noise source. building types are 'Icuo,xm. With the mitigation measures of the EIR, and the conditions of approval attached to this project, the noise impacts can be mitigated to a level ofinsigrdficance. Based upon th/s analysis, the environmental impacts of noise related to th/s project have been addressed both through the earlier analysis of the program FEIR, as well as mitigated to a level of insignificance. A Negative Declaration of environmental impact is appropriate. Public Services: These items were addressed in the earl/er 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 of public 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 allowing 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 Plark Mitigation 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/I5.0 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 Pro,ams of the Specific Plan that will be implemented as conditions of this project include 40, 8A through SE, 8G, 8H, gJ, 8K and 8N. Inclusion of these mitigation measures and Action Pro=m-ams and corresponding conditions of approval will mitigate impacts in this topic area to a level of insig:nificance. UTILITIES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The ex'tension of water, eleclrical and natural gas lines into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has been determined by the FEtR to be a significant ~owth-inducing impact and, therefore, was ~nctuded within 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, ~omes 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 of insignificance by the mitigation measures of the FF_.IR (please refer to matrix for applicable measures). The plans of the City and DSRSD to provide sewer service to future 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 v/a one of the ex-port options analyzed in the 1992 EIR for the long range Wastewater Management Plan for the Livennore-AmadorValley or via groundwater recharge and recycling (includi~greverse osmosis). DSRSD is currentiy planning the construction of facilities to treat wastewater via reverse osmosis, and these facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve al/portions of Eastern Dublin already annexed to DSRSD (including all areas covered by this Specific Plan Amendment). The project does not raise any additional sig'nificant impacts which were not covered by the FEIR _amSTtiETICS: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIR, and through various mitigation measures. The FEIR has determined development of Eastern Dublin will inalterably change the rural, a=m-icultural character of the area and, therefore, that this is a significant unavoidable adverse hnpact. Visual/aesthetics was part of the Statement of Overriding Consideration. As identified in the Specific Plan ErR, development of the flatter portions of the project area (including certain portions of this project site) is regarded as a trade-off measure desi~maed ~o preserve slopes, hillsides' and ridgelines -, contained in the larger Specific Plan area. ,~ The FEIR contains measures to maintain the ,~dsual 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 EIR 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 Program 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 maintaining the visual character of the eastern ridgelines, ~tercourses, and distinct landscape features, for travelers on scenic routes in Eastern Di~blin. In addition to impacts upon scenic corridors, potential visual impacts could result from the grading of slopes and the location of homes in hillsides 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 in project design which will help address impacts upon visual resources. As required by the adopted FEIR mitigation monitoring program, the project w/Il be required to institute sensitive grading an d contouring of the project development to the natural landform. /his requirement will be applied continually at various project entitlement stages, such as grafting permit, subdivision map approval,'~ ske developmentrevJew. No impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin GPA/SPA Final EIR are expected to occur as a result of the proposed PlarmedDevelopment. CuI,~ RESOIm~ES: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis 6fthe FEI~ and through various mitigation measures. The project will not result in the alteration of or the destruction of-any prehistoric or historic archaeolo~cal sites. The project does not have the potential to cause a physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric, historic or architecUn-ally significant building structure or object. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses withSn the potential impact area. Mitigation Measures of the FEll{ 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 of insignificance. Those Mitigation Measures and Action Pro~mzm are as follows: 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/12.0 and 6P. RECKEAT~ON: These items were addressed in the earlier analysis of the FEIK, and through various mitigation measures. Policies in the General Plan and Spe6ific Plan require that development pay its fair share of costs to maintain the same levels of recreational services presently in place in the City. In Iieu park dedication fees will be paid, and/or park site(s) will be dedicated, to mitigate the Dublin Ranch ,Areas B-E 5mpact on the City's recreation facilities. Mitigation Measures of the FEIR, Action Pro__mrams 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 '~,,,' mitigation measures will reduce any recreational impacts of the project to an insignificant level DETERMINATION On the basis o£this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] I find that although the proposed project could have a sig-nificant 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 the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fred 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 mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENWIRONMENrrAL 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 significant 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 througJa revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project (unavoidable significan adverse effects of the project have been included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations done for the proem EIR for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, of which this project is a part). $ig-namre Printed Name Title Tasha Huston .~ssociate Planner ATTACHMENT A MATRIX OF MITIGA~ON MEASURES OF TFIE EASTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN / GENERAL PLA2q AMENDMENT EIR (Tncorporated by reference; available at City of Dublin, 100 Civic _Plaza, Dublin CA 510-833-6610) 94568 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)