Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 077-96 Schaefer GPA RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 96 .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PA 94-028 SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, Schaefer Heights, Inc, (the applicants) have submitted a request for a General Plan Amendment, Planned DeveloPment (PD) Prezoning, and other related entitlement requests to establish land uses, general provisions and development regulations for a development Consisting of up to 474 single family homes, and commercial/office, semi-public, and open space land uses on approximately 500 acres, generally located on the north side of the 1-580 freeway, at Schaefer Ranch Road, in Alameda County, adjacent to Dublin's Western City limits; and WHEREAS, a complete application for the General Plan Amendment is available and on file in the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, In response to a proposal for development of the Schaefer Ranch property, the City ~of Dublin undertook the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Study to evaluate the proposed 3evelopment of the Schaefer Ranch project site within Dublin's Western Extended Planning area; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the project, including the General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Prezoning, Annexation to the City, Tentative Subdivision Map, Annexation to and/or detachment from various service districts, possibly including the Dublin San Ramon Services District, Castro Valley School District, and/or the Dublin Unified School District, and approval of subsequent development entitlements. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was filed with the State of California Governors' Office of Planning and Research via the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 95033070); and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was initially circulated for a 45-day public/agency review period beginning on December 27, 1995, and ending on January 16, 1996, and was extended for an additional period to February 20, 1996. Public notice of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to Responsible Agencies and various other interested parties; and ~: WHEREAS, the City of Dublin Planning Commission held duly noticed public input meetings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on January 16, 1996, and on February 20, 1996. At these hearings, and through submitted written comments, the Planning Commission receiVed comments on the Draft EIR from the public, responsible agencies, other governmental and private organizations, as well as .-..from City staff and its consultants and property owners and their consultants; and WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments on environmental issues received during the public review period and at the public hearings, which responses clarify and amplify the information contained in the Draft EIR, providing good faith reasoned analysis supported by factual information. The comments and responses to comments were published with the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 1996, the Final EIR, Volumes I and II, was distributed to or otherwise made available to the Planning Commission, City Council, Responsible Agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, A joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission was held on April 8, 1996, which addressed major issues affecting the physical development of the site, including: provision of pUblic services, such as fire service and schools; access to other W~ estern Dublin properties from the Schaefer Ranch project; and park land requirements, and ownerShip and maintenance of open space lands; and WHEREAS, with the consensUs direction by the decision makers to proceed with the processing of the Schaefer Ranch project, the City completed preparation of a Draft General Plan Amendment for approximately 500 acres; and WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan Amendment, dated March, 1996, designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the Schaefer Ranch project component of the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area for residential, commerCial, public, open space and parks, and other categories of public and private uses of land; and WHEREAS, the Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of standards of population density and standards of building intensity for the Schaefer Ranch project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated June 4, 1996, was prepared for the Planning Commission regarding the Schaefer Ranch Project Final EIR and proposed General Plan Amendment, which report described the Final EIR, the comments and responses received, and identified issues related to the certification of the EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heldaduly noticed public hearing on the Schaefer Ranch project Final EIR and Draft General Plan Amendment on June 4, 1996, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. After considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public heatings, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, as complete, adequate, and in compliance with CEQA and the City of Dublin's Environmental Guidelines, and recommended City Council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996 the City Council held duly noticed a public hearing to hear testimony regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-18; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996 the City Council adopted ResolutiOn No.76-96, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") as adequate and complete. The Final EIR identified significant adverse' environmental impacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes or alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, findings adopting the changes or 'alterations are required and are contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and a statement of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant to CEQA and is also contained in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment are addressed within the Final EIR, and no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required for the General Plan Amendment that were not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch project, and the General Plan Amendment is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council used their independent judgment, heard and considered all said reports,_ recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth, and determines that the proposed Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and intends to adopt such amendment; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to make certain findings if the City approves a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding considerations if the Council approves a project which will result in unavoidable significant effects on the environment; and WHEREAS, The Final EIR for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects; and WHEREAS, Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or alterations in the project; and WHEREAS, Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure to ensure compliance during project implementation; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 65300 authorizes a city council to adopt general plan for land outside its boundaries which in the Planning Commission's judgment bears relation to its planning; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has considered whether land outside the City's boundaries bears relation to the City's planning, and has recommended adoption of the General Plan Amendment for the project site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT A. The Dublin City Council finds the Schaefer Ranch Project, as described in the Final EIR, to be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, attached as Exhibit 2-A to this resolution. D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staffto edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TI-IAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make the findings, and rationale for each of the findings, set forth in Exhibit 2-B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each identified impact in Exhibit 2-B make changes to, or alterations to, the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, that, once implemented as described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit 2-C hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TItAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 of Exhibit 2-B, attached hereto, which statement shall be included in the record of the project approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2-C, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. BE IT FURTI-IER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the Applicants for land use approvals in the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment area shall pay their pro rata share of all costs associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program.. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination for the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment with the Alameda County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public, within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment, dated March 1996, as modified by this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TBAT this Resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Moffatt and Mayor Houston NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Howard ABSTAIN: None ~/// ~. .F'J / _L {e' '~1.( "~ .,-,,~g ~ Mayor ATTEST:' ~ity Clerkk'-' K2/g/cc-mtgs/7-9-96/reso-th2. doc (g:\pa#\1994\94028\7-gccmtg\r-gpafin.doc) Schaefer Ranch .project Genelal Plan 'Amendment March 1996 prepared by WPM planning Team, Inc. 118: I Street., Suite lB Sacramento CA 95814 for City of Dublin Planning Department 100 'Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 TABLE OF CONTENTS page Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Background and Rationale for General Plan Amendment 1 1.2 The Planning Process for the Western Extended Planning Area 1 1.3 Project and Site Characteristics 2 1.4 Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area 2 1.5 How to Use this Document 2 Part 2: Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment page GPA 1.4 Primary Planning Area and Extended Planning Area 3 GPA 1.8.1 Land Use Classification 4 GPA 2.0 Land Use Element 5 GPA 2.1.4 Residential Land Use 6 GPA 3.1 Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources 7 and for Public Health and Safety GPA 3.2 Agricultural Open Space 8 GPA 3.3 Open Space for Outdoor Recreation 9 GPA 5.1 Trafficways 10 GPA 7.0 Conservation Element 11 GPA 7.1 Stream Corridors and Riparian Vegetation 13 GPA 7.2 Erosion and Siltation Control 15 GPA 7.3 Oak Woodlands 16 GPA 7.7 Open Space Maintenance/Management 17 GPA 8.2.2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection 19 GPA 8.2.3 Flooding 21 Figul~s [revision of selected General Plan figures] 1-2 Extended Planning Area 1-3 Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment Map 2-2 Development Potential 2-4 Development Potential - Western Extended Planning Area 8-1 Geologic Hazards '9-1 Existing Noise Exposure Contours 9-2 2005 Projected Noise Exposure Contours Tables Table 2-2 -- Schaefer Ranch Land Use and Housing Characteristics 5 Part 1: Introduction 1.1 Background and Rationale for General Plan Amendment Dublin's current General Plan was adopted in 1985. A number of amendments have been adopted since that time, including extensive changes incorporated in the 1994 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment. The General Plan includes site-specific policies for the central part of Dublin (the Primary Planning Area). However, the Planning Area for ultimate growth in Dublin also includes large ~areas to the east and west of the current built-up area of the CiW. These locations are called the Extended Planning Area. At the time the General Plan was adopted, there were no proposals for development in the Extended Planning Area, and land was still available for additional growth in the Primary Planning Area. However, in recognition of future needs for expansion, the General Plan established basic policies for addressing future expansion into these areas. The Plan notes that, for the Western Extended Planning Area, "The location, extent, and density of residential development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies."(Dublin General Plan, page ii). The General Plan also states that "many or most development proposals in the extended planning area will require a General Plan amendment." (Dublin General Plan, page 2) The current planning program for the Schaefer P, znch project in the Western Extended Planning Area is in keeping with the original direction provided by the General Plan. This General Plan Amendment thus is a logical outgrowth of the City's earlier planning efforts. 1.2 The Planning Process for the Western Extended Planning Area Detailed planning efforts in the Western Extended Planning Area began in 1989, with the preparation of the Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment for the entire area. An EIR was prepared and certified in 1992. The Western Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment subsequently were rejected in a City referendum. The Current Schaefer Ranch development proposal involves a much smaller area. In this General Plan Amendment, the Schaefer Ranch project site is referred to as the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning Area. 1.3 Project and Site Characteristics Figure 1-2 shows the location of the project site in the Westem Extended Planning Area. General characteristics include the following: Location. Between Dublin and Castro Valley, along the north side of 1-580. Area. about 500 acres. Existing site characteristics. Existing rangeland, predominantly a series of ridges and canyons, with considerable woodland. A limited number of rural residences are located in the Westem Extended Planning Area. Project landowners and proponents. Schaefer Heights Associates control most of the land on the project site, and have submitted a development proposal to the City. A 48-acre parcel within the project site is owned by Dennis and Laurie Gibbs. 1.4 Policies for the Western Extended Planning Area The General Plan has an established format where some policies apply on a citywide basis, while other policies are directed only to the Primary Planning Area or Extended Planning Area. This General Plan Amendment continues this selective policy approach. This document is not intended to serve as a comprehensive general plan update for Dublin. Instead, this General Plan Amendment provides necessary text and map revisions to update certain information in the General Plan. The Extended Planning Area includes both Western and Eastern Dublin. This General Plan Amendment establishes policies which are geared specifically to the Western Extended Planning Area. 1.5 How to Use This Document Chapter 2 includes the actual text and figure revisions which constitute the General Plan Amendment. Typically, to provide context for the amended text, the entire section or subsection of the current General Plan is included. The full text of the current General Plan is available for review at the Dublin Planning Department. · Additions are noted in italics. · Deletions are identified by a "strikeout" with a solid line through the text to be deleted. · Material in brackets is not part of the amendment, but describes formatting of text. 2 Part 2: Schaefer Ranch Project General Plan Amendment AMENDMENT 1.4: PRIMARy PLANNING AREA AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA. [Add the following text to end of Section 1.4.] Western Extended Planning ,4rea This area presents a unique opportunity for the City of Dublin. The Western Extended Planning ,4 rea is strategically located in the Bay A rea, and includes part of the open space corridor which stretches from Contra Costa County to Santa Clara County. With its Steep terrain and scenic oak woodlands, this area has important open space values for Dublin and the region. A t the same time, the Western Extended Planning ,4 rea, consisting of about 3,255 acres, provides a unique opportunity for carefully planned development. Most of the Planning ,4 rea has convenient access to Interstate 580. In addition, major ridgelines screen most of the site from key offsite viewpoints. There is thus the potential to add housing and recreational facilities in this area, without major disruption of existing neighborhoods or damage to scenic values in the surrounding area The General Plan includes policies which are specifically geared to the unique qualities and opportunities of this section of the City. It is the intent of the City of Dublin to balance open space goals with housing and recreational needs in the Western Extended Planning ,4 rea. ,4 n open space corridor on the main r~dgeline will be preserved, with a regional trail extending across the site. Key ridgelines, most woodland areas, and other important features will be protected. Development will be Clustered for increased land use efficiency. Within these sectors of clustered development, intensive grading and selective tree removal will be permitted, although proposed development shall respect natural features whenever possible. AMENDMENT 1.8.1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION, [Add the following text at end of section.] Western Extended Planning Area Residential Residential: Rural Residential/Agriculture (1 unit'per 1 O0 gross residential acres). See description under Eastern Extended Planning A rea Residential: Estate (0.01 - 0.8 units per gross residential acre). Typical ranchettes and estate homes are within this density range. Assumed househoM size is 3.2 persons per unit. Residential: Single-family (0.9 to 6.0 units per gross residential acre). See description under Primary Planning A rea Other land use categories Open Spac~ See description under Eastern Extended Planning A rea Commereial, public~semi-public, and other land use categories for the Primary Planning A rea are applicable in the Western Extended Planning A rea AMENDMENT 2.0: LAND USE ELEMENT [Add the following text and table at the end of Section 2.0.] Western Extended Planning Area Figure 1-3 illustrates generalized land use and circulation for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning A rea This sector of the City includes about 500 acres. This part of the Western Extended Planning Area will add a maximum of 474 housing units. Development at this maximum level' could result in a population of about 1,517. Table 2-2 summarizes land use and housing characteristics for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning Area The predominant land uses wouM be open space and residential uses. Retail/office uses would also be included. Table 2-2 Schaefer Ranch Project Land Use and Housing Characteristics Land Use Designation Acres Dwelling units (maximum) Residential: Estate 99.8 11 Residential: Single Farnily 108.0 463 Retail Office 10.7 -- Public/Sero i-Public , 33.9 -- Open Space 251.6 -- TOTAL 504.0 474 AMENDMENT 2.1.4: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. [Add the following text to the end of Section 2.1.4.] Western Extended Planning Area Guiding Policng D. Any development in the Western Extended Planning Area shall be integrated with the natural setting. Require clustering of development in areas with fewer constraints. Implementing Policies E. The location, extent and density of residential development will be determined when municipal services can be provided and through General Plan refinement studies. F. Approval of residential development in the Western Extended Planning Area will require determination that: (1) Utilities and public safety services will be provided at approved standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and businesses. (2) Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure the ridgelands as viewed from areas of existing development in Dublin. ~t ny necessary grading and construction shall be planned so as to protect Visual qualities. (3) Timing of development will not result in premature termination of viable agricultural operati, ons on adjoining lands. (4) The fiscal impact of new residential development in the Western Extended Planning ./t rea supports itself and does not draw upon and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the city. AMENDMENT 3.1' OPEN SPACE FOR PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. [Add the following text to the end of this section.] Western Extended Planning Area G~_ddinlI Policies - Western Extended Plarming Area E Development generally shall be confined to areas where slopes are under thirty percent, as part' of an overall clu~ter development concept on approved development plans. Within projects proposing clustered development and ancillary facilities in the. Western Extended Planning A rea, land alteration on slopes over thirty percent may be considered where the .£ollowing conditions are present: -- Public health and safety risks can be reduced to an acceptable level. -- Proposed land alteration would be necessary to achieve a basic public need, such as housing, recreation, street access, or public facilities. -- Long-term visual qualities can be maintained for residents of Dublin and nearby com m unities. F. Existing large stands of woodland and coastal scrub in the Western Extended Planning A rea shall be protected whereverpossible. Grassland sites shall be considered for development in preference to native shrub and woodland areas. lmolemenfino_ Policy.- Western Extended Planning; Area G. .ds conditions of development project approval, require detailed tree surveys, protection measures for existing trees to remain, and replanting of native vegetation. AMENDMENT 3.2: AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE. [Revise text so that policies apply to entire Extended Planning Area.] 3.2 AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE gasmm Extended Planning Area Excluding parcels fronting on 1-580, much of the Eastern Extended Planning Area is under Williamson Act Agreement (Government Code Section 51200, et. seq.), and Alameda County zoning sets minimum parcel size at 100 acres. Under the Williamson Act, property taxes are based on the agricultural value of land rather than its market value. The contract automatically renews each year for the new 1 O-year period unless the owner or the County gives notice of non-renewal. Guiding Policy - Eas~m Extended Planning Area A. Lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve can remain as rangeland as long as the landowner(s) wish to pursue agricultural activities. The City does not support the cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, unless some compelling public interest would be served. The urban land use designations in the General Plan Land Use Map illustrate ultimate (i.e. long-term) urban development potential, and do not represent a call for the cessation of agricultural activities. To pursue development of their property, any development proposal must be consistent with the General Plan and applicable specific plan policies for the site. A development application cannot be approved until a property owner has notified the applicable agency of the intent to cancel, or not renew, any prevailing Williamson Act contract on the subject property. Implementing Policy - Eas~rn.. Extended Planning Ama B. Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will have adequate urban services, and that conversion to urban use will not have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under contract. A.M]5;NDMiENW 3.3: OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION. [Add the following at end of section] Guiding Policies - Western Extended Planning Area N. Provide a north-south trail link across the Planning A rea, as pan of a regional trail network. O. Create a local trail network which links large areas of permanent open space, while providing convenient access from nearby residential areas. Maximize visual exposure to open space; and provide multiple local physical access points to increase public enjoyment of open space. P. Provide active recreation facilities to serve neighborhood residents. Implementing Policy - Western Extended Planning A rea Q. In conjunction with development approvals, promote land dedication or reservation, and improvements for a ridgeline regional trail and other trail links. [AMENDMENT 5.1: TRAFFICWAYS. [Reletter policies as follows] Policy 5.1L 5.1.M Policy 5.1M 5.1.N Policy 5.1N 5.1.O Policy 5. ~,~r~ 5.1.P [Add the following at end of section.] Western Extended Planning Area- Additional Policies Guiding Policies Q. Provide an efficient circulation system for the Western Extended Planning A rea, including linkage to the rest of the City, alternate transportation modes, and sensitivity to environmental concerns. R. The -primary access for the Schaefer Ranch sector of the Western Extended Planning 21 rea shall be via Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. Other sections of the Western Extended Planning A rea shall have _primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange. Implementing Polic~ S. Require the following major circulation im-provements in the Western Extended_Planning A rea: -- Extension of Dublin Boulevard to Schaefer Ranch Road. -- Collector streets to j~rovide access to residential neighborhoods and nonresidential uses, as identified in s-pecific develo_pm ent_plans. AMENDMENT 7.0: CONSERVATION ELEMENT. , [Revise page 7-1 as follows] ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCF~ MANAGEMENT: CONSERVATION ELEMENT Government Code sec. 65302 (d) requires that conservation elements plan for the conservation, development and use of natural resources. The statute lists resources that must be included and suggests other resources that may be included in the element. Finally, the statute specifically requires 'that countywide and any other water development, control, or conservation agencies be inc. luded in the element's water analysis. Dublin's Conservation Element addresses the following statutorily required elements: water resources, agricultural and other soils, rivers and streams, and wildlife 'habitats. Other important resources discussed in this element are air quality and archaeological and historical resources. Many conservation related resources are also important in the context of other elements. For example, agricultural and other open spaces are discussed in sec. 3.0 Parks and Open Space and sec. 4.0 Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Elements. Soil conditions related to earthquakes and flood hazard from local streams are discussed in sec. 8.0 Seismic Safety and Safety Element. Each of these element's counterparts in the Technical Supplement may also be consulted for information and background on resource related planning policies. Still other statutorily required resources do not occur in Dublin's planning area and are therefore' not discussed. Specifically~ Dublin is an inland city which contains no artificial or natural harbors. Likewise, the planning area contains no fisheries or mineral extraction areas. Air quality and wastewater disposal have been the Tri-Valley's most difficult conservation issues affecting urban growth, even with construction of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Management Association (LAVWMA) pipeline, and significantly improved air quality. The extent of anticipated development now draws greater attention to other conservation issues -- conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; loss of open space; hazards posed by development in steep and landslide prone areas; increased runoff; and erosion and stream siltation. Additionally, the prospect of renewed or intensified air quality and sewage disposal problems accompanies plans approved or under consideration that would result in up to 200,000 jobs in the Tri-Valley. The planning area includes three zones that are distinct in terms of topography, vegetation, and soils. The urban area within the city's borders and the undeveloped area just north of 1- 580 east of Tassajara Road form part of the flat valley floor. The land east of Camp Parks Milital3, Reservation and Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center and south of the county line consists of grassy rolling hills with occasional steep slopes, and the westernmost part of the planning area is composed of ridgelands covered primarily by grasslands with oak and woodlands on steep slopes and in winding canyons. (These zones are referred to below as the valley, eastern hills, and western hills portions of the planning area, respectively). [AMENDMENT 7.0 continued] The western hills form part of the ridgelands extending from Contra Costa to Santa Clara counties, established as an area of regional significance by a 1980 National Parks Service study. The ridgelands have been the subject of preservation efforts over the years, and also have been protected by the difficulty of development on the steep slopes and ridges. The ridgelands of the western hills are characterized by grazing land and good quality .... :~-'~ ~a ~n~ woodland and forest habitats with high natUral resource values. Perhaps most important, the western hills form part of a greenbelt that rings the Bay Plain, preventing continuous urban spread. An open space corridor, centered on the main r~dgeline in the Western Extended Planning A rec~ is included in the General Plan. This open space corridor will incorporate visually- prominent r~dgelands, as well as woodland and coastal scrub habitat. A north-south regional trail will provide access to this ctrea for hiking and nature study. [no change to remainder of section] AMENDM2ENT 7.1: STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION [revise text as follows] 7.1 STREAM CORRIDORS AND RIPARIAN VEGETATION The primary planning area is in the Livermore drainage unit of the Alameda Creek watershed. Of the many streams in this drainage area, one flows through the City -- Alamo Creek. The creek runs along the eastern side of Dublin near Dougherty Road. A major portion of the creek is channelized, and remaining sections have mostly been improved as a result of subdivision developments. The Extended Planning Area lies within other watersheds. Several significant streams traverse the Extended Planning Area -- Hollis Canyon and Martin Canyon Creeks in the western hills Dubl':n and Tassajara and Cottonwood Creeks in eastern Dublin. Refer to the following documents for information on these water courses (available from the City Planning Department): Western Dublin Environmental Setting - November 27, 1989. Western Dublin Final Dr&~ Environmental Impact Report - December !99! May 1992. Eastern Dublin Environmental Setting - November 1988 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Environmental Impact Report - 1994 +^ ~' .... ,,u~t,~ ;, laO,~ Extensive areas of riparian vegetation are located dong stream cOurses in the Western Extended Planning Area This riparian woodland has importance to wildlife in the area Considerable damage to riparian areas has resulted from intensive grazing. A. Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource. B. Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to-allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors. lm emenfing Policies - o.~ ...... :~ ..... ._-:~-.'.-:.~ C. Enforce watercourse ordinance in developed areas of city. D. Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding caused by blockage of streams. [GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7.1 CONTINUED] E. Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration. Additional Guiding Polic~ - Western Extended Planning Area F. While alteration of riparian vegetation ~vill be necessary in some situations, special consideration shall be given to protection or enhancement of riparian woodland in the Western Extended Planning A rea AMENDMENT 7.2: EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL [Revise text as follows] 7.2 EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL Guidino_ Policies - Primary Planning Ama and Eastern Extended planning Area A. Maintain natural hydrologic systems. B. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes. lmplemenfino. Policies - primary planning Area and Eastern Extended Planning Ama C. Enact and enforce erosion and Sedimentation ordinange e~a!~li, shing performance standards in relation to maintenance of water quality and protection of stream courses. D. Enact ordinance requiring on-site runoff control. E. Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff. F. Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. G. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Progratn. Guiding Policies - Western Extended Harming Area H. Maintain natural hydrologic systems. Contain any net increase of runoff onsite or with approved offsite measures. I. Regulate grading and development on steep slopes, with special concern forpotential problems of erosion and siltation. Implementing Policies - Western Extended Plannine Area J Require erosion control plansforproposed development. Erosion control plans shall include recommendations for preventing erosion and scour of drainageways, consistent with biological and visual values. K. In general, restrict areas of steep slopes (more than 30%) to permanent open spacel as part of an overall cluster development concept on approved plans. Any development in otherwise restricted areas shall require substantial mitigation which has considerable benefit to the community, in keeping with the standards of General Plan Policy 3. I.E. L. Development projects shall comply with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Prograrn. AMENDMENT 7.3: OAK WOODLANDS [Revise text as follows] 7.3 OAK WOODLANDS Most of the oak woodland within the Dublin Planning A rea is concentrated in the Western Extended Planning .4 rea In addition to California live oaks, other species such as laurel are a vital part of this plant community. This woodland has tmportant Visual and biological qualities. Guidin~ Policy - Primary, Planning. Ama and Eastern Extended Plannin~ Area A. Protect oak woodlands. Implementing Policy - primary Plannino. Area and Eastem Extended Plannine Area B. Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that otherwise could be graded and developed, permit allowable density to be transferred to another part of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review process. C. Develop a heritage tree ordinance. Guiding Policies - Western Extended Plannine Area D. There shall be an emphasis on preservation of oak woodland in the Western Extended Planning .4 rea. Development shall be clustered in grassland areas wherever possible, in order to protect existing trees. However, as pan of comprehensive planning for development in this arec~ some oak woodland may need to be removed. Removal of oaks shall be allowed only after all feasible site planning efforts have been made to preserve trees. E. .4ny removed trees shall be replaced, and existing trees to remain shall be protected. Implementing Policies - Western Extended Plannin~ Area F. Require effective replacement of existing trees which are scheduled for removal. G. Require detailed protection measures for trees to remain. AMENDMENT 7.7: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT [Revise text as follows] 7,7 OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT Acquisition of existing open space areas has been accomplished through Planned Developments and subdivision approvals. Since the existing City is mostly built out, there will be no additional major areas set aside for open space. In the Western and Eastern Extended Planning Areas, substantial areas of open space will be designated for 'open space. Refer to the Western Eastern Dublin Specific Plan for additional information. The Specific Plan for Eastern Dublin contains; ..... ,~a ~ ,, ..... 1992. It ,,;5!! cc, nta/n designated areas of open space and mechanisms for maintenance and management. In addition, the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan contains~,,~t*~ ,,~,~ ..... ~,----v*---~--~*~ *MI! cont-An information on open space acquisition and maintenance. Guiding Policy A. Require open space management and maintenance programs for open space areas established through subdivisions and Planned Development districts. Programs should include standards to ensure control of potential hazards; appropriate setbacks; and management of the open space so that it produces a positive and pleasing visual image. Implementing Policies B. Require that land designated and offered as open space in conjunction with *~' development approval be permanently restricted to open space use by recorded map or deed. C. Require revegetation of cut and fill slopes. D. Require use of native trees, shrubs and grasses with Iow maintenance costs in revegetation of cut and fill slopes. E. Access roads (including emergency access rOads), arterial streets and collector streets that must pass through open space areas shall be designed to minimize grading to the maximum extent possible, so as not to damage the ecological and/or aesthetic value and characteristics of the open space area. (See also Implementing Policy H below) F. Prohibit development within designated open space areas except that designed to enhance public safety and the environmental setting. 17 [AMENDMENT 7.7: OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE/MANAGEMENT- continued] G. Promote inclusion of hiking, bicycling, and/or equestrian trails within designated open space areas. Supplementary Implementing Policy - E~..-'. Exlended Planning Area H. Due to difficult terrain, some damage to ecological and aesthetic values may result from construction of streets and emergency access roads in the ~ast~t-Extended Planning Area. These roads shall be designed to incorporate feasible measures which minimize adverse effects on visual and biological resources. AMENDMENT 8.2.2 FIRE HAZARD AND FIRE PROTECTION [Amend text and add Implementing Policy F as follows] 8.2.2 Fire Hazard and Fire Protection Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) serves as the fire department for the City of Dublin and as such provides all fire prevention, fire protection and First Responder Emergency Medical Services within the City. For fire protectiori, the Authority requires 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours, which equates to 180,000 gallons. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) supplies water to the City of Dublin. Currently (1992), the District has a capacity of 10,500 gallons per minute. On a peak day, 5,250 gallons per minute is used for domestic purposes, leaving 3,750 gallons per minute for fire fighting or other uses. According to the Fire Authority, there has been sufficient water to accommodate fire calls in the City of Dublin (personal communication, Harold Ritter, former Fire Chief, Dougherty Regional Fire Authority, January 23, 1992). Steep, inaccessible slopes and brush create a high fire hazard in the western hills.,,,,,j~/r~;^' will need to modemize its fleet and make staffing adjustments to protect development in the extended planning area For projects thca are constructed outside afire station service area and/or interface'with open space, certain built-in.tire protection measures will be necessary. Guidine Policy A. Require special precautions against fire as a condition of development approval in the western hills outside the primary planning area. lmplementin~ Policies B. A fire protection buffer zone shall be provided around the perimeter of residential development situated adjacent to undeveloped open space lan& C. Enact a high hazard ordinance specifying sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response time from a station. D. Continue to enforce the City's Fire Safe Roof and Spark Arrestor ordinances. [AMENDMENT 8.2.2 FIRE PROTECTION - continued] Guiding Po!-'.e.~' Policies - Extended Planning Area E. Prepare and implement a plan for facilities and personnel at one or more fire stations east of Tassajara Road, as a condition of development approval in the Eastern Extended Planning Area. F. For development m the vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road, fire spnnklers and other measures shall be provided in proposed structures as conditions of approval, in lieu of fire station improvements. However, it is the City's intent that a full fire station shall be provided in the Western Extended Planning A rea before any substantial development proceeds beyond the general vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road. A fire station site shall be reserved in the general vicinity of Schaefer Ranch Road near Interstate 580. [AMENDMENT 8.2.3: FLOODING. Revise text as follows.] 8.2.3 Flooding Figure 8-2 delineates flood prone areas in the existing City limits. The areas shown identify the 100 and 500 year flood zones. Since this map was published, the City has implemented some downstream improvements, and the map will ultimately be amended by the Flood Emergency Management Agency. No 100 year or 500 year flood zones have been identified in the Western Extended Planning A rea Most of the areas in the 100 year flood plain have been built upon. Any new construction in flood prone areas is required to construct the floor above the floodplain level, per the requirements of the City Public Works Department. Flooding has not been a major problem in Dublin~ In 1983, heavy storms carried debris down from the western hills, blocking drains and causing flooding of backyards and several homes in the Silvergate area. Drains were cleaned, and the situation was alleviated. Some channel improvements were made in the Scarlett Court area in 1983, and improvements were also implemented along Alamo Creek, adjacent to Dougherty Road. There are currently (as of January 1992) no major flood improvement projects needed or planned for the City of Dublin. Guiding Policy A. Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right-of-way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated flow. emen n o ces- . ..... ~ ..... i .....................- -.--~. -- - i ..... (See also Conservation Element policies) B. Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision or other development approval. C. Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands wherever possible. Replant vegetation according to the standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan or other applicable standards (see also General Plan Guiding Policy 3.1.A). D. Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that appropriate mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to approval of development in the extended planning area. E. Continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood insurance program. F. Prepare an annual update of flood prone areas and related issues and present to the City Council for their in_formation and appropriate action, if any. i 21 Figure 9-2 ! .. !t-4 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Environmemal Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project / General Plan Amendment prepared by WPM Planning Team, Inc. for the City of Dublin, California .. July 1, 1996 EXHIBIT 2-B T ab 1 e o'f Contents Introduction -' ~ Definitions 1 General Considerations 2 Findings Section 1: Significant Impacts 5 Section 2: Alternatives 34 Section 3: Growth-Inducing Impacts 37 Section 4: Other Impacts 38 ~i Statement of Overriding Considerations 38 --....- Introduction These Findings have been prepared in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project. Each finding statement in Section 1 includes a summary of the impact, mitigation measure, and the appropriate finding with rationale, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Impacts and mitigation measures are provided in summary form, and the Findings refer to pages in the EIK wherFfhe full text is contained. Fiscal impacts are not required for evaluation by CEQA, and thus no findings are included for the fiscal impacts listed in Chapter 10 of the FEIK. Findings also are not required for the planning recommendations listed in Chapter 3 of the 1.1 Definitions Applicant. Schaefer Heights, Inc., or designated successors. As of June 1996, Schaefer Heights, Inc., assumed control over the Gibbs property, and separate mitigations for the Gibbs property thus are no longer necessary. "Applicant" or related terms include any technical consultants retained by the applicant when appropriate. Equivalent terms are Applicants, Developer, or Developers. City. City of Dublin, California. City CoUncil or Council. The City Council of Dublin, California. CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. DRFA. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. Final EIR, FEIR. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project, Dublin, CA, including the Draft EIK with revisions an d Response to Comments. Project. Schaefer Kanch Project, Dublin, CA, as defined in the Final EI:K for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, Section 1.6. 1 1.2 General considerations A few general notes about these Findings are in order. "'.': a. Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the EIK The f'mdings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this Council in all respects and are fully and completely supp6~ed by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. b. Nature of Findings. Any finding made by this Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This Council intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole, and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross- reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings. c. Limitations. The Council's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project of the scope and size of the Project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project w/ll not exist. This practical Iimitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 which states that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the Council's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what-are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. For instance, the City acting alone cannot solve the air quality problems of the region. d. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives, and other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the EIR, the Project and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Moreover, the summaries set forth below, including, but without limitation, summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the EIR and other evidence have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the EIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. e. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings are based on the numerous mitigation :-' measures, to be required in the implementation of the Project, as recommended by the EIR or identified by the E/R as already having been incorporated into the Project. It 2 should be noted in this regard that the Project is designed to be self mitigating, often incorporating the perceived best option among various alternatives. This Council is hereby adopting and incorporating into the implementation of the Project those Mitigation Measures recommended in the EIK, which have not already been incorporated into the Project, (with the exception of those Mitigation Measures that are rejected by the Council in the specific findings). This Council finds that all the Mitigation Measures now or previously incorporated into the Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the Project in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring-Program. f. Mitigation Measures Are Conditions. The Council hereby conditions the adoption and implementation of the Project on the implementation of the Mitigation Measures adopted below. All such adopted Mitigation Measures shall be considered conditions of the Project. 1.2.1 Description of the Record For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this Council includes, without limitation, the following: A. All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Project, including without limitation, applications for the General Plan Amendment, Prezoning, Annexation and Development Agreement submitted by the Applicant to the City; B. The FEIK, including appendices and Addendum with exhibits; C. All City staff reports on the Project and the FEIK; D. All studies conducted for the Project and FEIK contained or referenced in the staff reports or FEIR, including appendices and any and all biological studies; E. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the Council and the Planning Commission; F. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings related to the Project and the FEIK before the Planning Commission and the Council; G. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the FE]2K; H. All matters of common knowledge to the Council, including but not limited to: 1. flue City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. the City's fiscal status; 3. City policies and regulations; 4. reports, projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the City; and 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. 3 1.2.2 Project Description As described more fully in the FEIK, the project is located between Castro Valley and Dublin, along the north side ofi-580. Total area of the project site is about 500 acres. The site is existing rangeland, with a series of ridges and canyons. There is considerable woodland. Two homes are now located on the site. The proposed project would have a maximum total of 474 residential mits. These are predominantly single-family detached ti~Smes, with some attached single family units, estafe residential parcels, and retail/office uses. Water reservoirs, a water storage tank site, and recreation facilities also would be included. A large part of the site would be kept in open space, including a regional park corridor dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. At buildout, the project would have an estimated maximum population of 1,517. 1.2.3 Project Objectives A. Public Objectives · Provide for development, as well as protection of important environmental resources consistent with the policies of the General Plan which are applicable to the Project site. · Provide for a variety of housing types and densities to meet the growing demand -.- for housing by the residents of Dublin and the w/der housing market area. B. Private Obi ecfives · Create a distinguished residential community with four unique neighborhoods, to meet the housing market demands of the area, which generates the highest tax revenues for the City to provide the necessary public services. · Provide shopping and office services designed to serve the needs and lifestyles of each neighborhood. · Contribute to solving the existing jobs/housing imbalance in the Tri-Valley East Bay area. · Create a safe and desirable living environment by providing passive and active open space areas separating as many lots as possible and interconnecting them by pedestrian and equestrian trails. · Protect local landmarks by dedication and enhancement of significant open space for regional public access and benefit. 4 Section 1: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the Project's potential significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. Findings pursuant to Section 21081 (c) as they relate to project alternatives, are made in Section 2 of these Findings. AGRICULTURAL USE ON ADJOINING LAND IMPACT 3.5D: Agricultural use on adjoining lands, or on the project site if grazing is continued in project open space, could be adversely affected by proposed development. Dogs owned by project residents could harass or injure livestock. Residential use close to the adjoining lands or onsite grazing lands could result in livestock gates left open, or in damage to fences or to other livestock control structures. Project residents, in turn, might be affected by flies and odors normally attendant to grazing operations. FEIR pages 3-22, 3-23. Mitigation Measures 3-12 through 3-15: Provide project residents with disclosure statements addressing protection measures for livestock, and also addressing the presence of agricultural nuisances. Protect agricultural operations by enforcing leash ordinances and including dog owner liability for livestock damage. Provide fencing at the periphery of grazing areas. FEIR page 3-23. Finding. Mitigation Measures 3-12 through 3-15 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce .~.:, the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because by , . . :: increasing the future project resident's awareness of agricultural activities and by separating livestock operations from residential uses the measures will reduce the likelihood of negative interactions between agricultural activities and residential uses.. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SILVERGATE DRIVE/DUBLIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPACT 4A: Without signalization, the project would contdbut~to a significant adverse impact on the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection. FEIR page 4-14. ' · Mitigation Measure 4.A.l: The project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of the cost to install a traffic signal at the Silvergate Drive-Dublin Boulevard intersection and associated widening. FEIR page 4-14. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.A.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been requirext in, or incorporatexl into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service with signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SAN RAMON/DUBLIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPACT 4B: Construction of planned improvements to this intersection has .begun in conjunction with the CiD,'s Dubtin Boulevard widening project, with the stipulation that the costs for these improvements ~- would ulfim ately be reimbursed by benefitted developments. Without these improvements, the intersection would function at an unacceptable level of service. As a benefitted development, the project ',:-' would have a significant adverse impact on this intersection. FEIR page 4-14. 5 Mitigation Measure 4.B. 1: The project applicants shall contribute a "fair share" portion of the cost of improvements currently under construction by the City. FEIR page 4-14. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.B.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have ',~¢'i: been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service with the Dublin Boulevard improvements will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: HANSi~I~I DRIVE /DUBLIN BOULEVARD INrI'ERSECTION IMPACT 4F: Delays to Hansen Drive Waffle are expected to increase significantly. The project contributes to the need for a traffic signal, thereby creating a significant impact. FEIR page 4-15. Mitigation Measure 4.F.l' The project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of the cost of traffic signalization at the Hansen Drive /Dublin Boulevard intersection. FEIR page 4-15. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.F.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service with signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the criteria of significance. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD / DUBLIN CANYON ROAD INTERSECTION IMPACT 4G. Traffic signalization will be warranted at this intersection under near-term scenarios .... . Project traffic will contribute to this need for a traffic signal. FEIR page 4-15. ,,~g.?' Mitigation Measure 4.G. 1. Project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of the cost of traffic signalization at the Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon Boulevard intersection. FEIR page 4-15. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 is feasible and'is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have -' been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service · With signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD / DUBLIN BOULEVARD INTERSECTION IMPACT 4H. Traffic signaliTation will be warranted at this intersection under near-term scenarios. Project traffic will contribute to this need for a traffic signal. FEIR page 4-16. Mitigation Measure 4.H. 1. The project applicants shall be responsible for the construction of a traffic signal at the Dublin Boulevard / Schaefer Ranch Road intersection. FEIR page 4-16. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.1t.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the resulting level of service . with signalization will be "D" or better which is below the City's criteria of significance. 6 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: EDEN CANYON ROAD - PALOMARES CANYON ROAD / 1-580 INrTERCHANGE IMPACT 4L. Without signalization, project traffic would contribute to a significant adverse impact of cumulative traffic on these ramp intersections. FEtR page 4-22. Mitigation Measure 4.L. 1. Project applicants shall contribute a fair share portion of future signalization costs at the intersection of Eden Canyon Road/I-5$0 westbound ramps and the intersection of Pale Verde Road/I-5__8~0 eastbound ramps. FEIR page 4-22. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final ElK to a less than significant level because the resulting level of sen,ice with signalization will be "D" or better, which is below the City's criteria of significance. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION: TRANSIT ACCESS IMPACT 40. Transit provisions for the site are undetermined. Without transit arrangements, there would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 4-23. Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 A transit service plan shall be funded by the applicant, and shall address facihty needs and funding for transit improvements. The City shall require a park and ride lot and other facilities if appropriate. FEIR pages 4-23, 4-24. Finding. Mitigation Measure 4.O.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have .-~ been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact ~'- '- identified in the Final EIR because the measure requires funding of a transit plan and provide .~-, ::.- transit facilities which will allow local transit agencies to service the project at their discretion. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION: GIBBS PROPERTY ACCESS IMPACT 4P. The proposed street on the Gibbs property has features which do not meet City standards and which create potential 'a-affic safety impacts, including street length, alignment, and intersection design. FEIR page 4-24. ' Mitigation Measure 4.P.1 and 4.P.2. The Gibbs access street and intersection with Schaefer Ranch Road shall be designed to City standards. FEIK page 4-24. Findin~, Mitigation Measures 4.P.1 and 4.P.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant effect identified in the Final EIK to a less than significant level because changes to the project identified in these mitigation measures will eliminate substandard streets and intersection design by requiring a redesign of the street system. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION: SHOPPING CENTER ACCESS IMPACT 4Q. Access to the shopping center will create adverse traffic safety conditions if the access is located too close to the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road inters~tion. FEIR page 4-24, 4-25. .:. : Mitigation Measure 4.Q.1. Access to the shopping center shall be located so as to allow for ';:~!:' traffic safety needs. FEIR page 4-25. 7 Finding..Mifigation Measure 4.Q.1 is feasible and is hereby actoptecL Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the left turn inbound access and median break will be located far enough away from the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection to eliminate any significant safety risk from oncoming traffic. TtC~FFIC CIRCULATION: PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE ACCESS IMPACT 4R. Proposed trail alignment max_create traffic hazards due to midblock pedestrian cross, ings. Bike and pedestrian routes are needed to connect ~xisfing and proposed bicycle systems. FEIR page 4-26. Mifiga6on Measures z[.R,l, 4.R.2, and 4.R.3. A bicycle route shall be properly designated on Dublin Boulevard. Extend the proposed pedestrian/equestrian trail under 1-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road. Trail crossings shall be properly signed. FEIR page 4-25, 4-26. Finding, Mitigation Measures 4.R.1, 4.11,2, and 4.R.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures will provide for exclusive bicycle and pedestrian pathways throughout the project with signage and marked crossings which should significantly discourage mid-block crossings and minimize safety hazards. ALTERATION OF SITE CHARACTER IMPACT 5A. Mass grading and extensive landform alteration is proposed. This alteration and the addition of an urban settlement pattern would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 5-8. Mitigation Measures 5.A.I and 5.A.2. A detailed grading plan and master landscape plan shall be designed to meet City standards, reduce visual impact and satisfy geotectmical requirements. FEIR pages 5-7, 5-8. Finding. Mitigation Measures 5.A.1 and 5,A.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterati/Sns have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or redu~ the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures cause thc graded areas to appear natural, avoid especially sensitive areas, provide extensive revegetation to preserve a more natural appearance and otherwise minimize the visual impacts of on-site grading. ROWELL RANCH RODEO PARK AREA / 1-580 VIEW OF SCHAEFER BASIN DEVELOPMENT. IMPACT 5B. The current rural view from the Rodeo Park would be mod/fled to a view of commercial and residential development framed by open space. FEIR page 5-10. Mi~gation Measures 5.B.1.5.B.2. and 5.B.3.: Use berms, setbacks, and/or other design measures to conceal structures from the Rodeo Park. Modify grading plan to reduce visual impact. Require conditional use permit for commercial development. FEIR pages 5-10, 5-11. Finding: Mitigation Measures 5.B.1, 5.B.2 and 5.B.3 are fb~sible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EI1L, because the measures would largely conceal and Screen the developed areas from Rodeo park and 1-580 and help to preserve the ridge --..- silhouette. 8 INTERSTATE 5 gO CORRIDOR - VIEW OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION .... ?' IMPACT 5C. Construction of the Dublin Boulevard Extension, involving tree removal and extensive landform alteration, would be highly visible from the 1-580 freeway. FEIR page 5-11. Mitigation Measures 5.C.1, 5.C.2. and 5.C.3. Align this street and plan grading to reduce grading and tree removal. Include special attention to tree replacement for this area in the landscape- revegetafion plans to soften graded slopes and have as mauy or more trees visible from 1-580 after the project compared to before the project. FEIR pages 5-11, 5-12. Finding: Mitigation Measures 5.C.1, 5.C.2 and 5.C.3 axe feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures would reduce the mount of grading required, conceal and screen the roadway with plantings and otherwise make the new roadway less visually intrusive. KIDGELINE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTE AND TRAIL IMPACT 5Dc Grading and paving of portions of an emergency vehicle access over Skyline Ridge may be visible from Central Dublin, which could adversely affect views of Skyline Ridge. FEIR page 5-12. Mitigation Measure 5.D.1. Minimize impact with plan alignment. Design and build the road to the minimum acceptable width, with a surface treatment which blends with the hillside setting. FEIR 5-12. ,~,~. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.D.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have .:, ,~,, -" been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIK to a less than significant level because the measures would minimize the size of the route and cause the route to blend in with the surroundings substantially reducing its visibility from Central Dublin.- MARSHALL CLIFFS ~IMPACT 5E. Development could affect the Marshall Cliffs, a rock outcropping with high scenic value. FEIR pages 5-12, 5-13. Mitigation Measure 5.E.1. Protect the visual qualifies of the Marshall C!iff,~ 15y minimizing grading in and around the rock outcropping. FEIR page 5-12. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.E.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would ensure that the visually significant portions of the Marshall Cliffs are not disturbed by grading. REGIONAL TRAIL - VISUAL CONCERNS IMPACT 5F: The proposed regional trail requires careful design and location planning to preserve its visual Value for trail users and area residents. FEIR page 5-13. :: : Mitigation Measure 5.F. 1. Align the trail to provide a minimum buffer between the trail and '":~.':: development. Adjust trail alignment, street crossings and connections near 1-580 for direct and convenient location while avoiding urban development wherever possible. FEIR page 5-13. 9 Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.F. 1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact . . ::.? identified in the Final ELK to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that ~:-i the trail will be constructed so as to minimize views of urban areas and also so as to be as visually unobtrusive as is feasible. WATER STORAGE TANKS - VISUAL CONCERNS IMPACT 5G. Without careful siting and d~-sign treatment, proposed tanks and pump stations Iocited in the upper elevations of the project site could have adverse visual effects. FELK page 5-13. Mitigation Measure 5.G. 1. Tanks shall be designed to blend into their visual setting, with neutral paint color, plant materials, berming, and/or landform screening used to reduce visual impact. Provision of this information allows the opportunity to identify and resolve visual siting and design effects of specific facility proposals. FEIR pages 5-13. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.G.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final ELK to a less than significant level, because the measures will cause the tanks to either be screened from view or to be designed such that they are unobtrusive and difficult to discern from the natural environment. PUMP STATIONS - VISUAL CONCERNS IMPACT 5H. Without proper design, pump stations could have an adverse effect on the visual environment. FELK page 5-14. Mitigation Measure 5.H. 1. Pump stations shall be placed in unobtrusive locations, or underground, with plant materials used for screening if necessary. FELK page 5-14. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.H.1 is feasit~le and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have - been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final ELK to a less than si~tmificant level, because the measures will require that the pump stations be substantially hidden or screened from pubhc view. LIGHT AND GLARE - PUBLIC FACII.ITIES IMPACT 51: Pubhc facilities could have night lighting which would affect nearby residents. FEIR pages 5-14. Mitigation Measure 5.I. 1. Design lighting to minimize impact on nearby residential areas. FEIR pages 5-15. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.L1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final ELK to a less than si~niflcant level, because the measures would cause the lighting ofpublic facilities to be designed so as to avoid glare on nearby residential areas by requiring focused lighting, low glare light fixtures, shielding or other techniques . 10 LIGHT AND GLARE - PRIVATE RECREATION FACILITIES ..)~-~ :: IMPACT 5J. Private recreation facilities could have night lighting which would affect nearby residents. FEIR pages 5-15. Mitigation Measure 5.J. 1. Design lighting to minimize impact on nearby residential areas. FEIR pages 5-15. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.J.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less-~an significant level because the measures would taus8 the lighting of private recreational facilities to be designed so as to avoid glare on nearby residential areas by requiring focused lighting, low glare light fixtures, shielding or other techniques. LIGHT AND GLARE - COMMERCIAL USES IMPACT 5K. Commercial facilities could have night hghting and illuminated signs which would affect nearby residents and 1-580 motorists. FEIR page 5-15. Mitigation Measure 5.K.l: Design lighting and select materials to minimize light and glare impact on nearby residential areas and on 1-580 motorists. FEIR pages 5-15. Finding: Mitigation Measure 5.IC1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would cause the Iighting of commercial uses to be designed so as to avoid glare and excessive illuminations on .~---:. nearby residential areas and 1-580 motorists by requiring pedestrian-scaled light fixtures, strict · :_ .. control of sign lighting, and other techniques. ~rlLLOW RIPARIAN / EMERGENT WETLAND COMPLEX IMPACT 6A. The proposed development would destroy the natural emergent wetland seep and willow riparian habitats plus the large permanent pond in Marshall Canyon which this water source supplies. Due to the relative scarcity of habitat in the greater project site area and its significance to wildlife, this is a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 6-12, 6-13. ' Mitigation Measure 6.A. 1 (a). Redesign the development plan'so that this wetland complex is preserved, along with a buffer area. FEIR page 6-13. Mitigation Measure 6.A. 1.Co). Provide suitable onsite habitat mitigation, including willow riparian habitat. FEIR page 6-13. Mitigation Measure 6.A. 1 (e). Enter into an off-site mitigation agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG at an acreage replacement specified by those agencies. Finding: Mitigation Measure 6.3,.1 (b) is feasible and is hereby adopted. Mitigation Measures 6.A.l(a) and 6.A.1 (c) are less desirable and unnecessary and are hereby rejected. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the ,.~ mitigation measure would proxfide replace habitat of equal value elsewhere on-site for the :-.: .,.:..'- mount actually lost. The preservation of existing habitat (mitigation oPtion a) is rejected because '"' .... redesign of the project to preserve this habitat would result in substantial reduction in the number of proposed housing units, and thus would not meet the stated objectives for the project; and 11 because a satisfactory mitigation Option is available which would meet both housing and environmental objectives. The off-site mitigation option (c) is rejected because replacement habitat in the immediate area of the project is preferable to off-site habitat replacement, in cases -~:' where on-site habitat replacement is feasible. LOSS OF OTHER AQUATIC BIOMES AND YURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IMPACT 6B. Four other stock ponds would be removed by development: FEIR page 6-14. Mitigation Measure 6.B. 1. To red~fc, e the' effects of development on aquatic resources, pr'ovide on-site replacement habitat and buffers around replacement habitat. Conduct pre-construction surveys. Habitat restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist. FEIR page 6-14. Finding: Mitigation Measure 6.B.1 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final ELR to a less than significant level because the measures would replace any aquatic habitat lost due to the project with an amount equal in size and quality elsewhere on-site. LOSS OF GRASSLAND IMPACT 6C. Grassland habitat, including potential habitat for the burrowing owl, would be disturbed by construction activity. FELR page 6-15. Mitigation Measure 6.C.1 and 6.C.2: Revegetate disturbed areas. Conduct preconstmction survey for burrowing owl. Control or discontinue grazing in the retained grasslands to enhance productivity for wildlife. FEIR p. 6-15. (Mitigation Measure 7.6.I requires preparation of an open space management plan which will further clarify procedures for grassland habitat management regarding grazing in open space areas. FEIR page 7-40.) Finding: Mitigation Measures 6.C.1' and 6~Cz2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified/'n the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will provide for the re-establishment of grassland temporarily lost due to construction activities, will include provisions for potential burrowing owl habitat, and will eliminate future grassland habitat degradation due to overgr~zing by livestock. COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND IMPACT 6D: Proposed development would result in removal of oak woodland and its related habitat value. FEIR pages 6-15, 6-16. Mitigation Measures 6.D. 1.6.D.2 and 6.D.3. Complete a detailed tree survey and apply tree protection measures for trees to remain. Based on the survey, make adjustments to the development plan to protect additional trees. Protect retained woodland and provide replacement of removed trees at a 3:1 ratio. FEIR pages 6-16, 6-17. Finding: Mitigation Measures 6.D.1, 6,C.2 and 6.C.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than si~nificant level, because the measures would identify and protect to the extent feasible existing heritage class trees and :' replace those trees unavoidably lost at a 3 to 1 replacement ratio. Such measures combined will 12 result in no net loss of trees over the long term and will preserve the existing oak trees planned to remain. SECONDARY EFFECTS ON NATIVE PLANTS AND WILDLIFE IMPACT 6E: Plants introduced to the project site could compete with native vegetation. Domestic animals could pose problems for wildlife. Project construction and occupancy would result in noise and other intensive human activity which could affect native wildlife species. FEIK page 6-15. Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 and 6.E.2. Rather than use introduced plants which could compete with native vegetation, emphasize the use of native plants in landscaping. Apply Dublin's leash law to the project, in order to reduce effects of domestic animals on native species. FEIR page 6-15. Finding: Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 and 6.E.2 are feasible and are hereb3' adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, However, even with these changes, the impact will not be reduced to a less-than,significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted for this impact upon approval of the project. HERBICIDE RESTRICTIONS IMPACT 6F. Herbicide sprays could enter the natural plant communities adjacent to the new development and could seriously impact the local native plant and wildlife species. FEIR page 6-17. Mitigation Measure 6.F.1. Provide rules regulating the use of herbicides. FEIR page 6-18. :' :' Finding: Mitigation Measure 6.F.1 is feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than siLmi~cant level, because the measure will substantially prevent herbicide exposure in the areas of the project site designated as natural open space and habitat. DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY: WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPACT 7. lA. Development will require additional distribution mains, pumping .facilities, and storage tanks. FEIR page 7-6. Mitigation Measures 7.1.2 and 7.1.3. To ensure long-term water supply, design and construct all water system/facility improvements in accordance with DSKSD's water management plans and design and construction standards. Create Pressure Zone 4 and water storage facility. FEIR page 7-7. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that the project has an effective, adequate and efficient water distribution system. 13 CONSTRAINTS ON WATER SUPPLY IMPACT 7. l ]3. Without application of water conservation measures, and timely provision of water ~.'.'::.-- service, there would be a potential significant adverse impact on water supply. FEIR page 7-6. ~/-"i' Mitigation Measures 7.1.1 through 7.1.8. Support the DSRSD Water Use Reduction Plan, with implementation of recycled water systems and other water conservation measures on the site. Require that design and construction of all water facility and system improvements be in accordance with DSRSD standards. Require that one additional pressure zone and water storage facility be created. Obtain written c-6hf'nmaafion that the affected districts can serve the prol~osed development, and attach the appropriate conditions of approval, hsure that necessary water flows and pressures are available, with system sized in accordance with fire district requirements. Assure that adequate right of way is reserved for facility improvements. Phase development to facilitate orderly extensions of existing water systems. Verify that regulatory requirements are met for wells. FEIR pages 7-6 through 7-8. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7,1.1 through 7.1.8 are feasible and am hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that the project has an adequate and reliable source of water in sufficient mounts to satisfy the demands of project residents prior to the construction of any project improvement which may demand such water. WASTEWATER: COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES IMPACT 7.2A. Sanitary sewer service to the project site is constrained by the lack of off-site -.-. do,amstream wastewater collection facilities, the capacity at the eXisting treatment plant in Pleasanton, ~. ,.:.' and the capacity in the existing export pipeline. Without expansion of existing facihties, or provision of " alternate facihties, there would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-9. Mitigation Measures 7.2.1 through 7.2.12. A will-serve letter shall be provided to the City. The applicant shall arrange with DSRSD for updating of collection system modeling. Require that parcels be connected to the sewage disposal system in keeping with current regulations. Use reCYcled water systems for certain landscaped areas. The project site shall be annexed to DSRSD. Improvements shall be designed in compliance with DSRSD standards and guidelines. The developer shall provide a copy of the sewer permit certificate from DSKSD. Treated effluent shall meet or exceed the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Recycled water plans shall comply with separation standards. Providd documents for recycled water system. Meet regulatory requirements for any recycled water reservoir. Coordinate planning of the recycled water line with DSRSD. FEIR pages 7-10 through 7-12. Finding: Mitigation Measures '7.2.1 through 7.2.12 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final ELR to a less than significant level because the measures require annexation of the project to DSRSD and would ensure that there is adequate sewage collection facilities and treatment capacity available to the project prior to the construction of any project improvement which would require such facilities or capacity. 14 WASTEWATER: DISTRICT ANNEXATION IMPACT 7.2B. The site is outside the DSRSD boundary. Without annexation, there would be a potential significant adverse impact on the ability to provide wastewater services. FEIR page 7-10. Mitigation Measure 7.2.5. The project site shall be annexed to DSRSD, in order to provide sanitary sewer service. FEIR page 7-11. Findint: Mitigation Measure 7.2.5 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significai~t impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure would require that the project be annexed to DSRSD prior to the construction of any project improvements which would require sewage collection and treatment service. DISPOSAL OF TREATED WASTEWATER IMPACT 7.2C. Current capacity of the export pipeline for treated wastewater may be insufficient. FEIR page 7-10, 7-11. Mitigation Measures 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4. A will-serve letter shall be provided to the City. The applicant shall arrange with DSRSD for updating of collection system modeling. RecyCled water systems shall be provided to certain landscaped areas. FEIR page 7-11. Findinq: Mitigation Measures 7.2.1.7.2.2 and 7.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce ..4/~ the potential significant impact identified in the Final ErR to a less than significant level, because :-.'!... · the measures would ensure that, prior to construction of any project improvements which require sewage disposal service, DSRSD will have sufficient export capacity in the LAVWMA or alternative system. WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS. IMPACT 7.2D. Without proper i:lesign of onsite wastewater improvements, there could be ah adverse impact. FErR page 7-10. Mitigation Measure 7.2.6. Wastewater systems shall be designed in compliance with DSRSD standards and guidelines. FEIR page 7-11. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.2.6. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or.alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final ErR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that the project has an adequate, effective and efficient wastewater collection system prior to the occupancy of any project improvement which would require such services. EXISTING HOMES ON SEPTIC TANKS IMPACT 7.2E. The lack of arrangements for sewer service to an existing home on septic tank service is a potential significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-10. :::. Mitigation Measure 7.2.3. Require connections to sewer lines in compliance with regulations. '::7-'.-:? FErR page 7-11. 15 Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.2.3. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final ElK to a less than significant level because the measure will require that existing septic systems be abandoned where required, and that those homes be connected to the new sewage collection system where required. FIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3C. The project would have a slightly extended response time for emergency vehicles to reach the site. FEIR page 7-23. -- Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 7.3.6. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2 addressing fire safety concerns. Require residential fire sprinklers and other methods of onsite fn-e control. Provide fn'e-resistive planting bands. Install a system of hydrants. Use fire-resistant construction materials and techniques. Avoid the use of flammable plant species and use landscape management techniques to reduce hazards from vegetation. Design streets to accommodate emergency response vehicles. FEIR pages 7-24 through 7-29. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1. through 7.3.6 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will increase the mount of t/me it takes for an onsite fire to spread by providing on-site fire suppression measures and also by providing for a site and potential capital conlribufions toward a new station should sufficient development occur in the western Dublin area to justify such a facility. A new station would reduce the response time to 5 minutes or less. On-site suppression measures will reduce the need to respond to a fire cai/within 5 minutes. .~--~.: MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIME IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3D. The project would have a slightly extended response time for medical emergency service providers to reach the site. FEIR page 7-25. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.-C and 8.2.2 addressing fire safety concerns. Require residential fire sprinklers and other methods of onsite fire control. Reserve site for additional new fire station and contribute fair share towards capital improvements for new station: Provide residents with notices stating that response time standards are unique to this project and make available a Community Education Program focusing on treatment of medical emergencies prior to first response. FEIR pages 7-24, 7-25, and 7-30. Finding:. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1. and 7.3,8 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures will provide for an increased rate of response if the level of development in western Dublin warrants the construction and operation of an additional fire/EMS facility and also because the notice and education program will provide self-help lraining which will substantially alleviate the need for the increased response time. 16 WILDLAND - STRUCTURE FIRE EXPOSURE IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3E. The proposed project is bordered by open-space wildlands. Fires could spread between buildings and wildland. FEIR page 7-25. Mitigation Measures 7.3.2 through 7.3.5. Provide fire-resistive planting bands. Install a system of Water mains and hydrants. Use fn'e-resistant construction materials and techniques. Avoid the use of flammable plant species. Prepare a fuel management plan. FEIR pages 7-26 through 7-28. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.2. through 7.3.5 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Ch'anges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will provide both passive and active on-site fire suppression systems which will substantially lessen the risk of damage to structures due to wildfires. WATER SUPPLY AND FIRE HYDRANT IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3F. Lack of adequate water supply and fn'e hydrants would result in a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-26. Mitigation Measure 7.3.3. Install a complete set of water mains and fire hydrants. FEIR page 7-26. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.3.3. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that the .~ project has an adequate and effective high pressure water supply system installed before the .: ... . construction of significant flammable improvements. COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3G. The use of wood shingles or other combustible construction can result in fast-spreading fires. FEIR page 7~27. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 and 7.3.4. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2 addressing fire safety concerns. Use f'n'e-resistant construction materials and methods. FEIK page 7-27. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1. and 7.3.4 are feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that project structures will contain fire suppression systems and will be constructed using only high fire rated materials and fire resistant construction techniques. LANDSCAPE AND MANAGEMENT IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3H. Flammable landscape materials can result in fire hazards. FEIR page 7-27. Mitigation Measure 7.3.5. Avoid the use of highly flammable landscape plants. Prepare a fuel management plan. FEIR page 7-25. -'~ Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.3.5. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations ""~'¥"" have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that 17 only fire resistant landscaping products are used in the project substantially reducing the risk of fn-e damage to Project structures. STREET AND ROAD ACCESS IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3.1. Some streets are not consistent with fzre district standards, and may increase hazards for local residents in case of an emergency. FEIR page 7-29. Mitigation Measure 7.3.6. Redesign_streets to meet fn-e district standards. FEIR page 7-29. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.3.6. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will require the elimination or redesign of all streets within the project which do not meet DRFA standards. LIFE SAFETY IMPACTS IMPACT 7.3.J. Assurance is needed that fire alarm and detection systems will remain operable, and education is needed for mitigation of medical emergencies prior to the arrival of the first responder. FEIR page 7-30. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1.7.3.7 and 7.3.8. Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2 addressing fire safety concerns. Require residential fire sprinklers and other methods of onsite £n'e control. Implement an education or self-inspection program to provide assurance that the automatic fire sprinkler systems remain in service. Provide a community education program focusing on the mitigation of medical emergencies prior to the arrival of the first responder. Provide a notice stating that response times are unique to this project. FEIR pages 7-24,25, 7-30. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.3.1., 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 am feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will ensure that project structures will contain fn-e protection systems, and will provide education and notice so trait project residents can provide self-help onsite fire/EMS response system operational monitoring. POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT 7.4A: Increased population due to development of the project site will require an increase in police personnel and support equipment. FEIR page 7-35. Mitigation Measures 7.4.1 and 7.4.2. To serve increased population from the project, expand police operations and systems to serve the project. Verif-y that security services will be provided for the East Bay Regional Park District land. FEIR page 7-35. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.4.1. and 7.4.2 are feasible mad me hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because thc measures would ensure a police presence sufficient to provide security for the developed portion of the project site and in the open space area. 18 POLICE PROTECTION - PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES -~ ': IMPACT 7.4B. Site and building layout can affect the ability of police to detect problems and respond to ' emergencies. Without adequate incorporation of police protection concerns into the project design, there would be a significant adverse impact. FEIR page 7-36. Mitigation Measure 7.4.3. Incorporate Police Department design recommendations into the project. FEIR page 7-36. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.4.3 i~-~easible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alteratiox/s have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the incorporation of Police Depmtment Design recommendations into the/'mai project design will substantially increase the security of the development and reduce the level of effort needed to patrol the project adequately. ELECTRICITY. NATURAL GAS AND TELEPHONE SERVICE IMPACT 7.5A. Development of the project will increase the demand for electrical, natural gas and telephone service. FEIR page 7-36. Mitigation Measures 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. The applicant shall coordinate with the City and utiliw companies in planning and scheduling future facilities and shall document that service is available to new development. FEIR pages 7-36, 7-37. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.5.1. and 7.5.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or .~-~. alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the : significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that the project has adequate and efficient telephone, natural gas, electrical and other utility service. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT IMPACT 7.6A. Without careful development guidelines and adherence to the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan~ compatibility conflicts could occur betWeen project land uses and adjacent open space. FEIR page 7-39. Mitigation Measure 7.6.1. Provide an open space management plan for design and development of open space areas. FEIR page 7-40. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.6.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the open space management plan will minimize the conflicts between urban land uses and adjacent open space by providing buffers and by identifying long-term maintenance program funding. PARK FACILITIES IMPACT 7.6B. Without arrangements for dedication of parkland and/or in-lieu fees, and funding of improvements, there would be a potential significant impact on City residents who would not have satisfactory recreation facilities. FEIR page 7-41. 19 Mitigation Measures 7.6.2.7.6.3, and 7.6.4. ReqUire that proposed parks be designed and constructed in compliance with the City of Dublin requirements; require dedication of a park site on the property; or pay in-lieu fees for neighborhood parkland. Require fees or on-site land dedication for community parks. Assess park sites in terms of suitability for use. FEIR page 7-42. Findin_~: Mitigation Measures 7.6.2, 7.6.3, and 7.6.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures ensure that neighborhood park facilities will be provided for project residents and that adequate in-lieu of fees or land dea~ation'will be required to provide sufficient resources 'to meet the City of Dublin community park standard. INrI'ERNAL OPEN SPACE ISSUES IMPACT 7.6C. Without addressing issues of ownership, liability and maintenance in internal open space areas, there are potential impacts associated with ftre suppression, weed control, Wash problems, erosion control, and slope instability. FEIR page 7-42. Mitigation Measure 7.6.5. Require major graded slopes to be owned by Homeowners' Association. Provide access for maintenance. Make arrangements for maintenance and management. FEIR page 7-42, 7-43. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.6.5. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure adequate maintenance of internal open space areas to reduce the danger of fire or other hazardous conditions. REGIONAL TI~AIL IMPACT 7.6E. Without detailed arrangements for meeting Regional Park District standards, there would be a potential significant adverse impact on trail users and local residents based on established City and Park District policies and standards. FEIR page 7-44. - Mitigation Measure 7.6.8 and 7.6.9. Verify dedication of regional trail corridor, and alignment and construction in keeping with Regional Park District standards. Coordinate efforts to link trail to Rowel/Ranch Rodeo Park. FEIR page 7-44. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.6.8. and 7.6.9 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that an adequate regional trail alignment that links to Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park has been dedicated to the EBRPD pursuant to their standards for regional trail alignment. RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA IMPACT 7.6F. Without satisfactory resolution of ownership of the Resoume Protection Area, there could be a potential adverse impact. FEIR page 7-45. Mitigation Measure 7.6.10. Require land dedication, access along the development perimeter, , and land use restrictions. FEIR page 7-45. '-: :' 20 Finding: Mitigation Measure 7.6.10. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential - ~::' significant impact identified in the Final EtR to a less than significant level, because the measure ":..)'~" will ensure that the open space area is under the control and responsibility of an entity which is capable of maintaining adequate control of the use and management of the area. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IMPACT 7.8A: With project development,__t_here ma3' be inadequate provision for other communi .t7 senfces. FEIR pages 7-47. Mitigation Measure 7.8.1: Verify that arrangements have been made to assure satisfactory ongoing municipal administrative service. Finding: Mitigation Measure 7,8.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will ensure that sufficient City administrative sen,ices will be available to accommodate the project's demands. SOLID WASTE CAPACITY IMPACT 7.9A: Proposed development will increase the amount of solid waste generated which will further reduce available landfill capacity. FEIR page 7-49. ,?,.~,-. Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2. Provide a "will-serve" letter from the solid waste disposal · .-. company. Provide Commercial recycling facilities. FEIR pages 7-49, 7-50.. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.9.1. and 7.9.2 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available to the project through recycling and through the assurance of adequate landfill capacity prior to the construction of any housing units or non-residential land uses. S CH O eL IMPA CT S IMPACT 7.10A: The project site is primarily within the Castro Valley Unified School District. The eastern part of the project site falls within the Dublin Unified School District, Neither school district would be able to absorb the new students generated by development of the site. Both school districts wish to serve the project. FEIR page 7-51, 7-52. Mitigation Measures 7.10.1 throueh 7.10,3: Verify that the issue of attendance areas between Castro Valley Unified School District and Dublin Unified School District has been resolved. The Development Agreement shall provide for applicant payment of fees to cover additional costs of students generated by the project. The applicable school district shall be consulted about any necessary siting of schools to serve the student population from the proposed project. FEIR page 7-52. ::'. Finding: Mitigation Measures 7.10.1. through 7.10.3 are feasible and am hereby adopted. ' "'"" Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the 21 measures will ensure that the project is annexed to a school district that has adequate facilities to accommodate the project's projected students prior to the construct/on of any residential units. GRADING AND RELATED IMPACTS ON DRAINAGE IMPACT 8.1A. Proposed grading will affect existing watershed flows, capacities, and downstream areas. Ex/sting drainage patterns will be altered by project development. Proposed development could load to increased localized runoff, increasing the possibility of flooding downstream properties. FEIR pages 8-3, 8-4. Mitigation Measures 8.1.I through 8.1.8. Provide a Master Drainage Plan to further supplement FEIR information on runoff impacts, to provide detailed drainage plans for project phases, to provide design features to minimize erosion, and to coordinate modifications or enhancements to creeks or the abutting riparian area with other agencies. Design project drainage improvements to accommodate existing and future flows. Provide facilities to control peak runoff discharge rates, and to control channel erosion. Obtain approval for watershed diVersion. FEIR pages 84 through 8-6. Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.1.I. through 8.1.8 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that the increased runoff due to the increase in impervious surface will be controlled through temporary on-site storage, runoff energy dissipators and other physical and programmatic measures resulting in no net runoff from the site. SEDIMENTATION AND ASS OCIATED IMPACTS ~:. IMPACT 8.2A: The potential for surface erosion will be increased during construction operations as soil is exposed to rainfall and overland runoff. Erosion could lead to additional transport and deposition of sext~ments within existing drainage ditches and pipes. Sediments can also damage aquatic life and vegetation. Sediment particles carry natural organic matter and nutrients, Particles washed from urban land surfaces also may contain traces of toxicants. FEIR pages 8-6, 8-7. Mitigation Measures 8..2.I, 8.2.2, and 8.2.4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report to examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. A detailed plan for the reclaimed water system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages 8-8, 8-9. Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1., 8.2.2, and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures require that adequate water quality control techniques such as desilting and filtering be implemented under the supervision of responsible regional authorities. WATER QUALITY: GRAZING IN PROXIMITY TO URBAN USES IMPACT 8.2B. The presence of cattle grazing in close proximity to proposed urban uses could have a significant adverse impact, due to health implications for area residents. FEIR page 8-7. Mitigation Measures 8.2.1.8.2.2, and 8.2.4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report to examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that " 22 DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. A detailed plan for the reclaimed water system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages 8-8, 8-9. · :. Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1, 8.2.2, and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will provide for controls on runoff, including measures to prevent negative effects of potential contamination of surface water with animal wastes. RUNOFF IMPACTS - RESERVOIR AND DETENTION BASINS. IMPACT 8.2C. Project- related grading would have a potential significant adverse impact on detention basins or the proposed recl~im ed water reservoir, due to resultant sedimentation. FEIR page 8-7. Mitigation Measures 8.2.1.8.2.2. and 8.2.4. Prepare a comprehensive water quality report to examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. A detailed plan for the reclaimed water system shall be approved by the City and by DSRSD. FEIR pages $-8, 8-9. Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1., 8.2.2, and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would provide a sedimentation control program under the supervision of the appropriate regional authorities which will substantially eliminate the contamination of surface waters fa'om sediment generated from project grading activities. GROUND WATER QUALITY IMPACT 8.2D. Potential impacts could result from existing septic tanks, and from runoff pollutants associated with nrban development. FEIR pages 8-7, $-8. Mitigation Measures 8.2.1.8.2.2, 8.2.3 and 8.2.4. Prepare a comprehensive ~vater quality report to examine water quality and runoff issues at a detailed design level. The City shall verify that - DSRSD has initiated permitting processes with regulators. Abandonment of existing wells and septic tanks shall be in accordance with regulations. A detailed plan for the reclaim ed water system shall be approved by the City and by DSKSD. FEIK pages 8-8, 8-9. Finding: Mitigation Measures 8.2.1., 8.2.2, 8.2.3 and 8.2.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will provide a water quality control program which will include measures to protect ground water quality such as the abandonment of septic systems and private wells under the supervision of responsible regional authorities. MASS GRADING IMPACTS IMPACT 9A: Mass grading has a significant impact due to landform alteration and to removal of natural vegetative cover and wildlife habitat. The extent of grading also can increase the impacts of eresion and ~;-~ changes in surface drainage and ground water conditions. Grading can cause activation of existing -: landslides and cause new slope failures. Off-hauling of excess material can create ex~ssive track traffic ";:;:: with associated dust problems, potential damage to existing streets and traffic problemsl FEIR page 9-8, 9-9. 23 Mitigation Measures 9.A. 1, 9.A.2 and 9.A.3. A detailed grading plan shall be designed to minimize project grading, to provide a smooth transition to natural terrain, to consider visual concerns, to protect existing trees during grading, to encourage recycled water for dust control, ~. . and to balance quantifies of cut and fill on-site. Keep visual impacts and tree loss to a minimum '~:i: through special remedial grading approaches using reinforced earth or retaining walls. FEIR page 9-9. Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.A.1., 9.A.2, and 9.A.3 are feasible and are hereby' adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in-the Fin'al EIR, because the measures will require that gi-ading is balanced (no off-site removal of cut-fill material), existing vegetation is conserved to the extent possible, landslides are repaired, natural appearing contours are provided, and the amount of dust is reduced. SLOPE STABILITY IMPACTS IMPACT 9B: Numerous landslides are found throughout the project site. Many show signs of recent acti,~dty, and many are massive and/or deep-seated. In addition, debris flow areas and soil creep on steep slopes occur on the project site. Existing landslides, new landslides on unstable slopes, debris flows and soil creep could damage structures or improvements if continued or new movement would occur. FEIR page 9-10. Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 9.B.8. Complete a detailed geotechnical investigation to provide supplementary identification and accurate mapping of all landslides, debris flow areas, and soft creep areas. Specific recommendations to stabilize landslides and unstable slopes shall be related to the proposed development. Design grading so that slope stability is improved. ~-~,. Control water movement with ditches and subflrainage. Identif3, and stabilize or avoid soft creep areas. Designate setback zones where unstable features cannot be mitigated otherwise. Require the project's detailed grading plan to evaluate natural slopes, cut and fill areas and landslide areas and to enhance slope stability through the orientation and location of cuts and through fill design. Establish a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to maintain and repair landslides and other geologic hazards. FEIR pages 9-10 through 9-12. Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.B.1. through 9.B.8 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that project grading results in no unrepaired landslides, activates no new landslides or provides for adequate setbacks where landslide repair cannot be performed. EROSION IMPACTS IMPACT 9C: Accelerated erosion could create unstable conditions, increase sediment in surface runoff, and cause erosion gullies. FEIR page 9-12. Mitigation Measures 9.C.1, 9.C.2 and 9.C.3. Require an erosion control plan as part cfa detailed geotechnical investigation. The erosion control plan shall include measures to prevent erosion of existing drainageways and measures for revegetation of graded soil surfaces. Require erosion control before and during grading to prevent erosion gullies and downcutting of streambeds.Temporary structures shall provide erosion control during storm runoff and permanent measures shall provide long-term erosion control. FEIR pages 9-12, 9-13. Findine: Mitigation Measures 9.C.1., 9.C.2, and 9.C.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. 24 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures will substantially reduce the amount of erosion generated by the project. FILL SETTLEMENT IMPACTS IMPACT 9D: Proposed fills on the site are estimated to be up to 140 feet thick, which could result in significant settlement. Differential settlement could occur, causing damage to building foundations and utility conduits. FEIR page 9-13. Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 9.D.5. Fill settlement shall be evaluated as part of a detailed geotechnical investigation, with feasible measures identified to minimize settlement risks for structures, roads and utilities. Include fill placement procedures and standards in detailed grading plans for the project. Limit structures and improvements in areas that have a potential for high differential settlement. Evaluate the feasibility of removing compressible soils below fills, or design structures capable of accommodating the predicted settlements. Monitor settlement of deep fills and postpone placement of structures on the fill until most anticipated settlement has occurred. FEIR pages 9-13, 9-14. Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.D.1. through 9.D.5 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been 'required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will identify areas with high soil settlement potential, cause those areas to be repaired where possible and adjust building location where necessary. These measures will substantially decrease the risk of property damage from soil settlement. EXPANSIVE AND CORROSIVE SOIL IMPACTS IMPACT 9E. Changes in volume of expansive soils caused from changes in soft moisture content, and the effects of corrosive soils can create ground movement that can damage structure foundations and other improvements. FEIR pages 9-14, 9-15. Mitigation Measures 9.E. 1 through 9.E.3. Evaluate-expansive soils as part of a detailed geotechnical evaluation conducted prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, with measures developed to reduce the risk of damage to improvements from expansive soils. Evaluate expansion potential and provide proper design of foundation and pavement sections. After grading, examine the corrosivity of soils, with the results used to design foundations and other improvements. Recommendations for moisture controI before, during and after construction should focus on minimizing soft shrinking and swelling. FEIR page 9-15. Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.E.1. through 9.E.3 am feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would remove the expansive soil from the developed area, cause the structures to be designed with foundations resistant to expansive and corrosive soils and provide moisture control to reduce shrink swell potential. These measures will substantially reduce the risk of structure damage due to these soils phenomena. SEISMIC HAZARD IMPACTS IMPACT 9F. The site is not within a currently designated State of California "Special Studies Zone" for active faults. The nearest major active fault is the Calaveras Fault which is located about 3,000 feet to the 25 east. The site will likely experience moderately strong to very strong ground motion during the life of the proposed development. Damage to structures and improvements, as well as injury to people, may occur due to strong ground shaking during a major seismic event. FEIR page 9-15. ~:.?.: Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 9.F.3. Seismic hazards shall be analyzed as part of a detailed geotechnical evaluation. Direct and indirect effects of groundshaking shall be assessed. Design and construct structures to maintain integrity during a major seismic event. Apply other corrective measures if fault zones are exposed during grading. Inactive faults in development areas shall be mapped and remedial measures prepared to protect foundations, pavement and slope stability. FEIR page 9-16. -- Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.F.1. through 9.F.3 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures will allow project improvements to be designed to be earthquake resistant, and therefore minimizing the risk of property damage and injury due to seismic activity. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS IMPACT 9G: Shallow groundwater may be present on the site. Groundwater can cause slope instability, or impact foundations, utilities, and pavement. 'With the addition of landscape irrigation water introduced by development, shallow ground water conditions can become more prevalent. FEIR page 9-16. Mitigation Measures 9.G. 1 through 9.G.4. The project geotechnical investigation shall identify ali areas exhibiting shallow ground water conditions, and shall recommend corrective measures for shallow groundwater effects. Groundwater information shall be used to anticipate where .- groundwater will be encountered during excavation. Subdrains shall be installed according to the ~:~. standards in the FEIR, and irrigation guidelines shall be provided to project property owners. ' FEIR pages 9-16, 9-17. Finding: Mitigation Measures 9.G.1. through 9.G.4 are feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the si~ificant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would allow areas of high groundwater to either be avoided or drained so that structures can be located and constructed safely. EXCAVATION IMPACTS IMPACT 9H. Some of the bedrock formations mapped on the site may contain units that are not easily excavated with conventional earthm eying equipment. Methods such as blasting may be the only alternative. Blasting can have disruptive noise and safety impacts on the environment. FEIR page 9-17. Mitigation Measure 9.H.1. Blasting to facilitate excavation is discouraged and should be performed only after other techniques have been exhausted, and only then in accordance with au approved blasting plan to include noise control and control of ftying rock and detonation. FEIR page 9-17. Finding: Mitigation Measure 9.tt.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will ensure that blasting is minimized. When blasting is not avoidable, the measure provides that it be conducted "..:.:::': as safely and unobtrusively as possible. 26 ,/.,/ CONSTRUCTION NOISE · ,;-'":~-: .. IMPACT 1 lA. The existing homes on the project site will experience construction noise during grading '" of the site. EIR page 11-4. Mitigation Measure 11 .A. 1. Arrange for residents to live offsite during construction, or phase grading operations and use berms or natural barriers to limit the duration of noise exposure, and limit hours of grading. FEIK page 11-4. Finding: Mitigation Measure ll.A.I, is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alteratidns have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will result in exposing no current resident in the project area to noise levels in excess of City noise standards. ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS IMPACT 1 lB. As development proceeds in the region, increased traffic levels will lead to higher highway noise levels. The site will be impacted by increased noise Ievels from 1-580, and by traffic on newly improved roadways within the project site. Schaefer Basin is the only part of the site where proposed development would be exposed to 1-580 freeway noise in excess of 60 dB, Ldn. FEIR page 11-5. Mitigation Measures I 1.B.1 and I I.B.2. Require a detailed noise control plan, with procedures for noise control in the Schaefer Basin Area. Redesign project to conform to City Noise Element. FEIR page 11-5. Finding: Mitigation Measures II.B.1. and II.B.2 a~e feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identificdin the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures will result in no project residences being subjected to noise levels in excess of City noise standards. AIR QUALITY - PARTICULATES IMPACT 12A: Dust from construction activities would cause a temporary increase in particulate matter near sites of proposed development, FEIR pages 12-8, 12-9. Mitigation Measure 12.A. 1. Reducing particuIate matter effects is largely a matter of controlling dust. Require strict dust control measures for grading. Such measures can include watering exposed surfaces, covering haul tracks, avoiding unnecessary engine idling, reseeding completed grading sites, and limiting vehicle speeds, and monitoring equipment for emission standards compliance. Take special measures in the vicinity of existing residences including onsite monitoring of dust levels, close supervision to ensure dust control measures are followed. FEIR pages I2-9, 12-10. Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.A.I. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential ,.~ significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant leveI, because the measure (i'i:.:._.. :..) would reduce the level of dust generated by the project to such an extent that the PM10 standard ·-~-'-' would not be violated. 27 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS IMPACT 12B. There may be Iocaliz~d violations of carbon monoxide (CO) standards due to construction '~.:i', equipment operation. FEIK page 12-11. ~.:.. Mi.fi. gation Measure 12.B. 1' Monitor and operate construction equipment to assure compliance with emission standards. Avoid open burning of construction waste. FEIR page 12-11. Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.B.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorpor~f~d into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure would substantially reduce the possibility that the construction activities of the project will cause the CO air standard to be violated. REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS IMPACT 12D. The project would contribute to emissions of ozone precursors in the region. Although the increase would be small, there are existing ozone problems in the area, and there is a regulatory requirement to produce a reduction in air pollution. FEIR pages 12-12, 12-13. Mitigation Measures 12.D.1 and 12.D.2. Implement control measures contained in air quality attainment plans. The project shall be planned to reduce automobile traffic. FEIR pages 12-13. Finding: Mitigation Measures 12.D.1. and 12.D.2 are feasible and ate hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. ON-SITE FUEL COMBUSTION IMPACT 12F. Inefficient wood stoves and fireplaces can add to carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate concentrations. FEIR page 12-14. Mitigation Measure 12.F. 1. Require efficient EPA-approved wood stoves and fireplace units. FEIR page 12-14. Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.F.1. is feasible and is hereb>, adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will prevent any on-site combustion activities from significantly adding to the CO levels and thereby causing a CO air violation. MISCELLANEOUS FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES IMPACT 12G: Road dust, construction activities, and handling of bulk materials add particulate matter to the air. FEIR page 12-14. Mifieafion Measure 12.G.1. Implement Air Quality District regulations regarding fugitive dust. FEIR page 12-15 ~;.. Finding: Mitigation Measure 12.G.1 is feasible and is hereb3' adopted. Changes or alterations -:.:- have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential 28 significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure would reduce the level of dust generated by the project to such an extent that the PM10 standard -~'. would not be violated. SITE PLANNING FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION IMPACT 13B: Without careful attention to site planning, including building and window orientation there could be inefficient and avoidable use of energy for space heating and cooling. FEIR page 13-3. Mitigation Measure 13.B. 1: Require redesign of project to improve solar orientation of lots, or use alternative methods of conserving energy. FEIR page 13-3. Finding: Mitigation Measure 13.B.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIK, because the measure will ensure the maximum practical energy conservation practices are implemented, resulting in an efficient use of energy resources. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES IMPACT 14A: Although no significant archeOlogical resources are 'known on-site, there is a potential that future earthmo~Sng activities could uncover archaeological materials. FEIR page 14-6. Mitigation Measure 14.A.1. Follow stop-work and notification procedures specified in the CEQA guidelines if cultural resources are found. FEIR page 14-6. · : Finding: Mitigation Measure 14ak.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations ::" have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified, in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure would ensure the protection and proper handling of any prehistoric artifacts discovered on the project site~ ROCK WALLS -" IMPACT 14B: Portions of existing historic rock walls on the site could be removed by proposed construction. FEIR page 14-7. Mitigation Measure 14.B.1. Adjust new fencing and limit of grading to protect rock walls. FEIR page 14-7. Finding: Mitigation Measure 14,B.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures would adequately protect and preserve the rock walls and prevent any damage from project activities. HISTORIC SETTLEMENT AREAS - ' IMPACT '14C: Several locations may contain buffed or obscured materials from the time of early .fA settlers. Site alteration is proposed in these areas. FEIK page 14-7. :':::2:: Mitigation Measure 14.C. 1. Provide monitoring of construction in areas of sensitivity in Schaefer Basin. FErR pages 14-7. 29 Finding: Mitigation Measure 14.C.1. is feasible and is hereby adopted Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure -:'.. would ensure the protection and proper handling of any historic artifacts or resources discovered on the project site. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT 15A. An investigation has identified hazardous materials on the site generally related to ranching and agricultural use and the presefffi~ ofpowerpoles with transformers. FEIR page 15-1. ' Mitigation Measures 15.A. 1 through 15.A.4. Remove identified hazardous materials in the appropriate manner. Close or evaluate existing wells and septic systems. Assess any other hazardous materials encountered during grading. FEIR page 15-2. Findinq: Mitigation Measures 15.A.1. through 15.A.4 am feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measures would ensure that all hazardous mater/als located on the project site would be handled and disposed of in a safe manner pursuant to state and federal regulations and that existing wells and septic systems would be abandoned and sealed in a safe manner. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IMPACT 18.2A. The Th-Valley Transportation Plan is under development. This plan may identify additional cumulative traffic impacts. FEIR page 18-3a. Mitigation Measure 18.2.1. If applicable, the project shall pay its fair share of trafflc impact fees, ':::'.':" as identified in the Th-Valley Transportation Plan or equivalent document. FEIK page 18-3. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.2.1. is feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the potential significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR, because the measu/i~ would require the project to contribute to regional traffic improvement projects which are designed to allow regional transportation facilities to function at acceptable levels of service. CUMULATIVE WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS IMPACT 18.3A. Ongoing urban development in the area is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand. FEIR pages 18-4, 18-5. Mitigation Measures 18.3.1 and 18.3.2. The City shall support areawide efforts to address potential cumulative impacts on water supplies. The City shall continue frequent coordination with DSRSD and Zone 7, in order to identify water supply trends and concerns. FEIR pages 18-5, 18-6. · Findine: Mitigation Measures 18.3.1. and 18.3.2 are feasible and hereby adopted. Such actions are primarily within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or reduce the potential significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because continuing adequate long range water planning will ensure a ..-::.- stable regional water supply. 3O CUMULATIVE IMPACT: WASTEWATER - :/ -::. IMPACT 18.3B: There is au increasing cumulative demand on area wastewater treatment facilities operated by the Dublin San Ramon Services District and other agencies. FElt[ page 18-6. Mitigation Measures 18.3.3 and t 8.3.4. Onsite water recycling facilities would reduce impact on waste~r facilities. DSRSD is currently expanding its program to meet service area neads. FEIR page 18-6, 18-7. Finding: Mitigation Measures 18.3.3. and 18.3.4 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes or alterations regarding wastewater treatment and recycling have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the potential si~it%ant effect identified in the Final ]En~ DSRSD's expansion program is within DSRSD's responsibility and jurisdiction. DSRSD can and should undertake the expansion program. Iflaken, such actions would avoid or reduce the si~tmi~icant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than si~m~ifieant level, because the measure will result in sufficient long term wastewamr treatment and disposal capacity for the region. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: SOLID WASTE . IMPACT 18.3C: Ongoing urban development is creating pressure on remaining landfill capacity. FEIR page 18-7. Mitigation Measure 18.3.5. The City shall continue to comply with the requirements of the · :/ California Integrated Waste Managcanent Act. FEIK page 18-7. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.5 is legible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporaled into City procedures that avoid or reduce the potential siLmitScant cumulative impact identified in the Final Ell[to a less than si~maifieant level, because the measure will ensure the City's continuing support of an adequate long-term solid waste disposal service and capacity for the region. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: POLICE pROTECTION IMPACT 18.3D: Cmulative population increase will require additions to police personnel and facilities. FEIR page 18-7. Mitigation Measure 18.3.6. The City shall continue to use the budget stmmgy to cover the costs of additional police protection. FEIR page 18-7. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.6 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduce the potential significant cumulative impact identified in the Final Ell[ lo a less than significant level, because the measure will enSUre *ha? there are adequate police resources citywide to satisfy the demand for police services. 31 CUMULATIVE IMPACT: PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT 18.3E. Increased population results in cumulative demand for park and recreation facilities. FEIR page 18-7. Mitigation Measure 18.3.7. The City shall continue master planning efforts to assess recreation needs and to plan for new facilities. FEIR page 18-7. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.7 is feasibIe and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporanb-d into the project that avoid or reduce the significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure will ensure that adequate park facilities are developed to meet the needs of the entire City of Dublin. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: SCHOOLS IMPACT 18.3G. Increased population due to new development adds to the pressure on local school districts. FEIR page 18-8. Mitigation Measure 18.3.8: The City shall coordinate efforts with local school districts to have ongoing procedures for requiring new development to pay its fair share of local school improvement costs. FEIR page 18-8. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.8 is feasible and is hereby adopted. To the extent that school district boundaries overlap the corporate boundaries of other jurisdictions, such actions are partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction ofpublic agency other than the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies and to the extent the measure ma5' be adopted by the City of Dublin, it is hereby adopted. If taken, such actions would avoid or reduce the potential significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level because the measure will ensure that adequate school facilities are provided for all relevant school districts. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: FIRE PROTECTION / EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE IMPACT 18.3t-I. Cumulative development in the Western Extended Plan'~ing Area would require additional fire protection facilities. FEIRpage 18-8, 18-9. Mitigation Measures 18.3.9. 18.3.10. Require reservation of a fn'e station site near the intersection of Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard Extension. Beneficiaries of a new fire station shall pay their fair share of costs. FEIR page 18-9. Finding: Mitigation Measures 18.3.9 and 18.3.10 are feasible and are hereby adopted. Changes oralterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project and in City procedures that avoid or reduce the significant cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measures will ensure that an adequate Fire/EMS facili~, is constructed in the Western Extended Planning Area should one become needed. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IMPACT 18.31: Increased population has a potential cumulative effect on other facilities and services. FEIR page 18-9. Mitigation Measure 18.3.11. The City shall continue efforts to monitor other cumulative impacts on public facilities, and to require conditions of approval to resolve these issues. FEIR p. 18~10. 32 Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.3.11 is feasible and is hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduc~ the significant : ~---.. cumulative impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure '.'i. will enable the City to require that adequate public services be provided to the entire City. CUMULATIVE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE RANGELAND) AND LANDSCAPE ALTERATION. IMPACT 18.4.B. The project would contribute to the loss of open space in the area. FEIR page 18-10. Mitigation Measure 18.4.1. The City shall support efforts of the East Bay Regional Park Dislrict to acquire and secure permanent open space in the area, and/or the City shall establish a fee for mitigation of open space loss. FEIR page 15-10. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.4.1 is feasible and is hereb3' adopted. In the case of regional parkland acquisition, such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. However, even if taken, such actions would not reduce the significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less-than-significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted for this impact, upon approval of the project. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACT: There is a continuing loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat to urban development in the area. FEIR page 18-11. Mitigation Measures 18.4.1 and 18.4.3. The City shall support efforts of the East Bay Regional ..... Park District to acquire and secure permanent open space in the area, and/or the City shall :: ' establish a fee for mitigation of open space loss. The City of Dublin shall adopt a heritage tree ordinance or shall take equivalent measures to protect existing trees. FEIR pages 18-10, 18-12. Finding: Mitigation Measures 18.4.1 and 18.4.3 me feasible and me hereby adopted. In the case of regional parkland acquisition, such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such " other agencies~ Changes or alterations in City procedures have b~m required that avoid or substantially lessen the significant cumulative impact identified in the'Final EIR. However, even if taken, such actions would not reduce the significant effect identified in the Final EIR to a less- than-significant level. A Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be adopted for this impact, upon approval of the project. ' ' CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT 18.4.K. The proposed project may add to the cumulative impacts on cultural resources caused by large-scale development in the area and region. FEI1K page 18-14. Mitigation Measure 18.4.4. The City of Dublin shall continue to include cultural resource protection in its plarming efforts. FEIR page 18-14. Finding: Mitigation Measure 18.4.4 is feasible and is hereby adopted- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into City procedures that avoid or reduce the significant ..~--- cumulative impact identified in the Final ElK to a less than significant level, because the measure .~.. .: will result in continuing the current protection of the cultural resources of the City of Dublin. -: - .~.-. 33 Section 2: Findings Concerning Alternatives The City Council hereby finds that the four alternatives, identified and described in the Final EIK were considered and are found to be infeasible for the following specific economic, social, ~-::? or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 (c). NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE /NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE. FEIR pages 17-1, 17-2. Finding: infeasible. With the No Project Alternative, the City would deny the project as proposed by the applicants. Under current zoning, there would remain the potential for a small number of units. With the No Development Alternative, no development whatsoever would occur on the site. All of the significant unmitigatable effects of the Project would be avoided by this alternative. However, it is infeasible for the following reasons: (a) Alternative fails to meet adopted public objectives, including the provision of needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. FEIR page 3-27. (b) Alternative does not meet the applicant's objectives, including the creation ora residential community to meet the housing market demands of the area; provide shopping and office services; contribute to solving the jobs/housing balance in the area; and to provide open space areas interconnected by pedestrian and equestrian trails. FEI/~ page 1-10. (c) Dublin Boulevard would not be emended, and the City would not receive the benefits of an alternate east-west traffic route. FEIR page 17-2. (d) No regional trail connection would be provided across the site. FEIR page 17-2. 34 RURAL RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (about 60 residential units). FEIR pages 17-3 through 17-5. Finding; infeasible. This option would include substantially fewer homes on large lots. Most of the site would be kept in open space. To the extent that this alternative would reduce or avoid the Project's unavoidable impacts, it is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (a) Alternative fails to meet adopted public objectives, including the provision of a range of needed housing and housing types and opportunities. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. FEIR page 3-27. (b) Alternative does not meet the applicant's objectives, including the creation of a residential community to meet the housing market demands of the area; provide shopping and office services; contribute to solving the jobs/housing balance in the area; and to provide open space areas interconnected by pedestrian and equestrian trails. FEI~R page 1- 10. (c) Dublin Boulevard would not be extended to the site, and the City would not receive the benefits of an alternate east-west traffic route. FEIR page 17-4. (d) Fire and emergency medical response time may be lengthened for area residents if Dublin Boulevard is not extended, leading to possible increased safety risks. FEIR page 17-5. (e) Continued overgrazing would likely cause further habitat damage. FElt[ page 17-3. ':.: (f) A small-scale development of this type may be too small to support a viable geologic hazards abatement district, which could lead to increased risks from geologic hazards. FEIK page 17-5, 17-10. MITIGATED PLAN ALTERNATIVE (about 460 residential units). ,Finding: infeasible. With this option, the proposed project would be modified to resolve certain impacts. FEI~R pages 17-6 through 17-8, 17-10. Although this alternative reduces the severity of some project impacts, it does not avoid the Project's unavoidable effects on vegetation and wildlife, air quality, and cumulative loss of open space. This alternative is further found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (a) The Mitigated Plan Alternative would have fewer lots than the proposed project, and thus would reduce housing opportunities. FEIR page 17-6. (b) Most environmental impacts would not be reduced by this alternative, and unavoidable impacts would remain. FEIK page 17-7, 17-10. (c) With this alternative, some homes would lose visual access to open space. FEIR page -: 17-7. (d) Fiscal benefits would be reduced. FEIR page 17-7. 35 OPTIONAL SITE ALTERNATIVE (500 units). Finding: infeasible. The project uses would be relocated to another site in Eastern Dublin. FEIR pages 17-8 through 17-10. The Optional Site Alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: ~.. (a) No evidence that unavoidable impacts would be substantially reduced. Some impacts might increase for this alternative, while other impacts would be reduced (FEIR page 17-9). The FEIR does not identify any elimination of unavoidable impacts on vegetation and wildlife, air quality, or cumulative loss of open space for thismltemafive. The optional site alternative is not identified in the Final EIR as an environmentally superior alternative. Thus, there is no clearly-defined environmental benefit to be gained by selecting this alternative. (b) Land ownership. This alternative would not meet the applicants' objectives, since they do not control the land in question, and are not likely to be able to acquire sufficient unplanned land in Eastern Dublin. FElt[ page 17-9. (c) General Plan. The Eastern Dublin optional site is not located in the Western Extended Planning Area, and thus would not meet the City's stated General Plan objectives for development of the Western Extended Planning Area, including the Schaefer Ranch project site. FEII{ pages 3-6 through 3-13. 36 Section 3: Growth-Inducing Impacts .';--~. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies growth-inducing impacts in keeping with '.'. State requirements. The State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines note that growth is not necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of Iittle significance to the environment· Environmental effects associated .with growth are addressed elsewhere in the Final INDIRECT EFFECT ON POPULATION IM?ACT 16.4A. The project would foster economic and population growth and the construction of additional housing in the region. At full buildout, the project would indirectly generate additional jobs beyond the employees estimated to be directly generated onsite by the project· Most of these employees and their families would work and reside in the surrounding communities, including Dublin. No project-related environmental impacts are directly associated .with this growth-inducing impact. Cumulative impacts associated with population growth are described in Chapter 18 of the Final EIK. Findings related to cumulative impacts of population growth are discussed under the findings for cumulative impacts. FEIK page 16-5. Findings: The FEIR identifies growth-inducing impacts in keeping .with State requirements. No project-related environmental impacts are directly associated .with this growth-inducing impact, and therefore no mitigation measures are necessary for this growth-inducing impact. EXTENSION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER LINES '-' IMPACT 16.4B' The project Will require extension of water and wastewater lines to the site. The sizing of these lines has not been determined at this stage of the development process· If these lines would be oversized to handle future development in the Western Extended Planning Area, this would be a potential growth-inducing impact. FEIR page 16-5. Mitigation Measure 16-1: Ensure that new lines do not have excess capacity Over that required to serve the proposed development. FElt[ page 16-6. Findings: Mitigation Measure 16-1 is feasible and hereby adopted, .Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid Or reduce the growth- inducing impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure ensures that no excess capacity Will be provided thereby reducing any incentive or advantage potential future development would realize from the project's water or wastewater infrastructure. IMI:'KOVED STREET ACCESS IMPACT 16.4C. The project.will include extension of Dublin Boulevard to the site, and an internal street (Schaefer Kanch Lane) which extends to the western property line. The project includes proposed General Plan Amendment 5.1 which limits the use of this street extension for future growth. Without adoption of General Plan Amendment 5.1, the extension of Schaefer ::}.::.:.. :-~[: Ranch Lane to the property line is a growth-inducing impact. FEIR page 16-6. 37 Mitigation Measure 16-2. Adopt General Plan Amendment 5.1 as part of the project approval, stating that other sections of the Western Extended Planning Area shall have primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange. FEIR page 16-6. Findings: Mitigation Measure 16-2 is feasible and hereby adopted. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or reduce the growth- inducing impact identified in the Final EIR to a less than significant level, because the measure would prevent future development from substantially utilizing the project's infrastructure without considerable capital improvement. Section 4: Other Impacts The City Council finds that ali other impacts of the proposed project are less-than-significant, as documented in the FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record: No mitigation is required for these less-than-significant impacts. Chapter 2 of the FEIR identifies several socioeconomic impacts, and Chapter 3 oft he FEIR identifies a number of "planning and policy concerns." These concerns are not "environmental impacts' defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15382. Nonetheless, the Council finds that the language and policies included in the Project General Plan Amendment address these planning and policy concerns and result in an internally consistent General Plan. Chapter 10 of the FEIR identifies a number of fiscal impacts. These fiscal concerns are not "environmental impacts' as defined by CEQA. Nonetheless, the Council finds that the fiscal :.~ mitigations included in Chapter 10 of the Final EIR address these fiscal concerns Section 5: Statement of Overriding Considerations Section 5.0 General - Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Schaefer Ranch project to the City of Dublin against the adverse impacts identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to less-than-significant level. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the project outwei~h the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should be approved. The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to adopt the project and to allow development on the Schaefer Ranch project site. Although the City CounciI believes that the unavoidable and irreversible environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the development plans as well as future mitigation measures implemented with futm-e approvals, it recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it irreversible environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially " adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there is substantial evidence in the record of specific economic, social, environmental, land use and other considerations which ~:.::.:' 38 support approval of the project. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified in Section 5.2 of these Findings is sufficient basis to approve the project as mitigated. :'2. Section 5.1: Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed Schaefer Ranch project as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated-by changes or alterations to the basic project. Vezetation and Wildlife Impact 6E: Secondary Effects on Native Plants and Wildlife. The introduction of exotic plant species, pets, and other effects of human occupancy would have adverse effects on the surrounding natural habitat. The No Project Alternative / No Development Alternative would be an assured way to avoid this impact. However, the No Project Alternative / No Development Alternative has been found to be infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and Optional Site Altematives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. Air 0uali _ty Impact 12D: Ke~ional Pollutant Emissions. Vehicles associated with the project would contribute to regional ozone emissions. Given the existing ozone problems in the area, and regulatory requirements to reduce ozone emissions, this would be'a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Only the No Project Alternative would be an assured way to avoid a project · ~-~ contribution to this impact. However, the No Project Alternative has been found to be infeasible !~ for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and "-:' Optional Site Alternatives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. .Impact 1 g.4B: cUmulative Loss of Open Space .(Private Rangeland) and Landscape Alteration. Continuing .u. rbanization in the region is converting private_, rangeland to other uses. The No Project Alternative would be an assured way to avoid a project contribution to this'impact at least on a temporary basis. However, the No Project Alternative has been found to be infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these.Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and Optional Site Alternatives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. Cumulative Impact l g4D: Cumulative Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts. Thfire is a cumulative loss of natural habitat in the region. The No Project Alternative would be an assured way to avoid a project contribution to this impact. However, the No Project Alternative has been found to be infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. The Rural Residential, Mitigated Plan, and Optional Site Alternatives will not avoid this impact, and in any case have been found infeasible for reasons identified in Section 2 of these Findings. Section 5.2 Overriding Considerations Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Cily Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed project and does determine that approval and implementation of the project would result in the following substantial public benefits. 39 Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the project. Specifically, the project will result in: a. The creation of about 64 new permanent jobs and a substantial number of construction jobs. The Project will generate approximately 64 new permanent jobs in the neighborhood serving office/retail center proposed in the project. In addition, there will be a substantial number of new temporary construction jobs created during the construction of the project (FEt~R-page 2-9); b. Increases in sales tax revenues for the City (FEIR page 2-9). The income of Project residents is projected to 50% greater than the average income level in the City currently. Consequently there is expected to be a greater mount of sales tax revenue derived from Project residents per capita than for the City on average; and c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues, estimated at a 15.5% increase in the City's assessed valuation at project buildout. (FEIR page 2-11) The project would increase the City's property tax base by over 15%. Due to this increase in tax base the City will receive an annually recurring surplus in revenues (over the costs of servicing the Project) starting at approximately $9,000 and increasing to over $211,000 per year at buildout. This surplus will allow the City to improve services Citywide without increasing taxes or fees. Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits which the City would derive from the implementation of the project. Specifically, the project will result in: a. Increase in housing opportunities in the City and a region where housing is costly and in short supply (FEIR page 2-7). The project will provide 463 units of housing .in a region of extremely high housing demand; and b. Dedication of almost one half of the project site (approximately 31% for publicly owned and 17% privately owned) for open space. This dedication includes both active and passive parkland and a regional trail system link through the open space of the project site. This open space will conserve the ecological values of the site and surrounding areas and provide recreational and open space amenity opportunities for residents of the project, the City, and the region (FEIR pages 7-37 through 7-44).; and c. An improvement in the City (and Tri-Valley region) Jobs/I-lousing Balance (FEIR page 2-9, t0). The City of Dublin currently has an imbalance in the jobs/housing ratio (1.32). With the project the City's jobs/housing balance ratio would improve to 1.16, potentially reducing the net outcommute by almost 50%. 40 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT July 1996 EXHIBIT 2-C MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project prepared by WPM Planning Team, Inc. for the City of Dublin, CA July 1996 The State of California requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for changes to the project or conditions of approval which have been identified and adopted as methods to reduce environmental impacts. The City of Dublin thus is required to establish a mitigation monitoring program if the proposed mitigation measures in this EIR are accepted and the proposed project is to be approved by the City. This program identifies the following: ° Who is responsible for monitoring the mitigation? · What is the mitigation measure being monitored and how? · '0,then should mitigation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is required? · Completion: when should the mitigation measures be in place and monitoring be completed? This indicates the latest stage in the process that the measure can be in place, for purposes of environmental management. However, the City may require certain measures at an earlier stage of the development process. ° Verification: what agency is required to ensure that the mitigation measure was implemented? A mitigation monitoring program is provided for each mitigation measure included in the Final Eltk In this mitigation monitoring program, only a summary of the mitigation measme text is provided. For the full text, refer to the Final EIR. seh~amp.796 ] Permit Processing and Mitigation Monitoring The mitigation monitoring program identifies the most appropriate and effective times to carry out mitigation measures. Key steps in the processing of the project are identified below, with notes about the relation of each step to mitigation measures. Planned Development Prezoning, Rezoning and Annexation Initial planned development prezoning is required at an early stage of the project review process. In addition, more detailed planned development review is required at the rezoning and tentative map stage of the process for individual components of the project. The conceptual site plan, preliminary master landscape plan, preliminary grading plan, and conceptual architectural plans are required at this stage. Tentative Map At this stage, the applicant submits a tentative subdivision map with street and lot layout. Typically, the tentative map for a project is approved with a number of conditions, particularly those involving technical matters such as street improvements. Mitigation measures involving significant site plan revisions would need to be completed before approval of the tentative map stage. ~_~ For this mitigation monitoring program, conditions specifying tentative map timing may be · / : applied to other development permit apPlications as appropriate if they precede the map application. Site Development Review (SDR) In Dublin, this is an important phase of project review, with intensive staff review of the applicant's submittals. Many of the mitigation measures involving conceptual planning will need to be completed by this point. Grading Plans and Grading Permit At this stage, a detailed grading plan is submitted for approval. A grading permit is required for any grading work on the site. A number of mitigation measures involving specialized grading, visual impact, and geotechnical issues will need to be resolved by this time. Improvement Plans This refers to the detailed drawings for streets and utilities. Mitigation measures involving these aspects of the project need to be completed before the improvement plans can be approved. sch~amp.796 ~9 Final Map .:.::(:'. The final map is a legal document which records final lot and street location. This is the last stage for most engineering-oriented mitigation measures to be completed. Building Permits Some mitigations are implemented when actual building construction begins and the site is occupied. The final inspection for the building permit is the last step before occupancy of the site. Ongoing Mitigation Measures Certain mitigations will need to continue on a long-term basis, during operation of the project. The EIR provides for various ways to continue long-term environmental protection. For example, a Geologic Ha:,-~rd Abatement District will provide for maintenance and any necessary repair of landslides on the site. Definitions and Abbreviations ACFCWCD. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The project site includes portions of ACFCWCD Zones 2 and 7. ': Applicant. Schaefer Heights, Inc., or designated successors. As of June 1996, Schaefer Heights, Inc., assumed control over the Gibbs properly, and separate mitigations for the Gibbs property thus are no longer necessary. "Applicant" or related terms include any technical consultants retained by the applicant when appropriate. Equivalent terms are Applicants, Developer, or Developers. DRFA. Dougherty Regional Fire Authority. DSRSD. Dublin San Kamon Services District GItAD. Geologic Hazard Abatement District (see Mitigation Measure 9.B.8). SDR. Site Development Review. Cross references In some cases, cross-referencing is provided when there are related mitigation measures. In particular, Mitigation Measure 5.A.2 (Master Landscape Plan) and Mitigation Measure 7.6.1 (Open Space Management Plan) have related measures elsewhere in the EII~ sch'~mmp.796 3 Chapter 2: Communitwa'ide Socioeconomic Impacts No mitigation monitoring required, since no environmental mitigation measures are recommended in Chapter 2. Chapter3: Land Use and Planning Measures 3-1 through 3-11 are planning recommendations which do not require mitigation monitoring. Mitigation Measure 3-12: Protection of Livestock Who: Applicant/Real Estate Agents/Homeo~mers Association What: Provide a sales disclosure statement regarding protection of livestock When: Prior to sale of first lots by developers/at follow-on sales of homes Completion: On-going implementation by Homeowners Association Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measures 3-13: Enforce Leash Ordinance Who: Animal Control Officer What: Enforce City leash ordinance to protect wildlife .~-~--. ~rhen: Commences with first residential occupancy · "' Completion: On-going Who Verifies: City of Dublin Police Sen,ices in consultation with Animal Control Mitigation Measure 3-14: Minimize Potential Agricultural Conflict Complaints ~rho: Applicant/Real Estate Agents/Homeowners Association What: Provide"sales disclosure statement regarding agricultural conflicts -' When: Statement approved by Planning Depm~uaent prior to sale of first residential unit Completion: On-going implementation by Homeowners Associations Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 3'15: Provide Open Space Fencing V~rho: Applicant What: Fence livestock grazing areas V~rhen: Require as a condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to first building occupancy permit Who Verifies: City Planning Department seh'm~-np.796 4 Chapter 4: Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure 4.A. 1: Silvergate Drive / Dublin Boulevard V~rho: Applicant ~ ~'' What: Contribute a fair share of cost to install ~affic signal at Silvergate Drive / Dublin Boulevard intersection and associated widening. V~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 4.B.l: San Ramon Road /Dublin Boulevard ~rho: Applicant What: Contribute a fair share of cost for installed traffic signal and related improvements at San Ramon Road / Dublin Boulevard intersection. V~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 4.F. 1: Hanson Drive / Dublin Boulevard Who: Applicant ~.rhat: Contribute a fair share of cost to install lraffo signal and related improvements at Hanson Drive/ Dublin Boulevard intersection. When: Condition of tentative map approval "...::. Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 4.G.l: Schaefer Ranch Road /Dublin Canyon Road Who: Applicant What: Contribute a fair share of cost to install traffic signal and related improvements at Schaefer Ranch Road / Dublin Canyon Road intersection, under fee payment schedule established and administered by Public Works Department. V~rlaen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City Who Verifies: DubLin Publio Works Department. Mitigation Measure 4.H.l' Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road Intersection Who: Applicant What: Install trafiqc signal and related improvements at Dublin Boulevard / Schaefer Ranch Road intersection. ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation, or according to terms of Development Agreement with City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department. $oh'~mmp.796 5 Mitigation Measure 4.L.l: 1-580/Eden Canyon Interchange What: Contribute fair share portion of future signalization costs at the intesecfion of Eden Canyon Road/I-580 westbound ramps and the intersection of Pale Verde Road / 1-580 Eastbound ramps. When: Include as condition of tentative map approval Completion: According to terms of Development Agreement with CID'; no later than date of traffic warrant for intersection. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department. Mitigation Measure 4.O.1: Transit Who: Applicant What: Fund a transit service plan to address facility needs and funding for transit improvements. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to approval of improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4.P.l: Gibbs Property Access Street Design Who: Applicant What: Redesign Gibbs property street access to meet City standards When: Before tentative map approval Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4.P.2: Gibbs Access Street Intersection Who: Applicant What: Redesign Gibbs access street intersection with Schaefer Ranch Road to meet City standards When: Before tentative map approval Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verffies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4.Q.l: Shopping Center Access Who: Applicant What: Redesign site plan to provide a median break on Dublin Boulevard a minimum of 250 feet west of Schaefer Ranch Road,or as determined by the Public Works Director. When: Before tentative map approval Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4.R.l: Bike Route Who: Applicant V~rhat: Dublin Boulevard shall be signed as a bike mute, or striped and signed for bike lanes When: Designations provided as part of public improvement plans Completion: Acceptance of public improvement plans by City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department seh'~amp.796 6 Mitieation Measure 4.R.2: Trail Extension Who: Applicant ' ~''-.~:' What: Extend pedestrian/equestrian trail under 1-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road When: Designations provided as part of public improvement plans Completion: Recordation of final map Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4.R.3: Trail Crossings Who: Applicant What: Trail crossings on Dublin Boulevard, N Street, and Dublin Canyon Road shall be properly signed and marked with crosswalks; modify trail alignment as needed for convenient access. When: Designations provided as part of public improvement plans Completion: Acceptance of public improvement plans by City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with Planning Department Chapter 5: Visual Quality and Site Design Mitigation Measure 5.A. 1: Grading Plan Who: Applicant What: Provide a detailed grading plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Public Works approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with Planning Dept. Mitigation Measure 5.A.2: Master Lartdseape Plan [see also Mitigation Measure 7.3.5] Who: Applicant What: Provide a landscape plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Plann-mg Depm~maent " Mitigation Measure 5.B.l: Site Plan - Schaefer Basin Area Who: Applicant What: Site plan shall include techniques to reduce visibility of development from 1-580 and Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of SDR permit (conceptual plans); before issuance of grading permit (detailed plans) Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.B.2: Grading Plan - Schaefer Basin Area Who: Applicant What: Modify grading plan to reduce visual impact When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Issuance of SDR permit (conceptual plan); issuance of grading permit (detailed plans) V~rho Verifies: Dubhn Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept. ~ seh~Jamp.796 7 Mitigation Measure 5.B.3: Commercial Uses .-'~ Who: Applicant " What: Obtain a site development review permit (conditional use permit) for any commercial development on site When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of specific commercial development plans Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Depamnent Mitigation Measure 5.C. 1: Street Alignment Who: Applicant What: Modify alignment of Dublin Boulevard to reduce grading and tree removal, consistent with safety When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept. Mitigation Measure 5.C.2: Grading Plan - Dublin Boulevard Who: Applicant What: Modify grading plan for Dublin Boulevard to reduce grading and tree removal When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Dept., in consultation with Planning Department ..7-- Mitigation Measure 5.C.3: Tree Replacement Who: Applicant What: Include special attention to tree replacement in landscape plan for Dublin Boulevard area When: Condition of tentative map approval '. Completion: Before issuance of grading permit ~nao Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept. Mitigation Measure 5.D. 1: Ememenc¥ Vehicle Access Standards - Skyline Ridge Who: Applicant what: Design emergency vehicle access to reduce visual impact. '~ ' When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept. Mitigation Measure 5.E.l: Grading Plan - Marshall Cliffs ~rho: Applicant ~rhat: Demonstrate that visual qualifies of Marshall Cliffs are protected ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Public Works approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department 'Q:: , sebmamp.796 Miti~,ation Measure 5.F.l: Regional Trail Who: Applicant What: Conform to regional trail construction materials and methods When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with East Bay Regional Park District Mitigation Measure 5.G.l: Water Storage Tanks - Visual Concerns Who: Applicant What: Provide supplementary design information about screening of tanks When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of final landscape plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.H.l: Pump Stations Who: Applicant What: Design pump stations to be unobtrusive. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of grading plans V~rho Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department MitigatiOn Measure 5.I.I: Lighting for Proposed Public Facilities Who: Applicant What: Design lighting for proposed public facilities to minimize impacts on residential areas. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Acceptance of public improvement plans by City Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.J. 1: Lighting for Private Recreation Facilities Who: Applicant What: Design lighting for proposed private facilities to minimize impacts on residential areas. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works DePartment Mitigation Measure 5.K.l' Commercial Light and Glare Control Who: Applicant ~rhat: Design lighting for minimum visual impact When: Condition of SDR permit/conditional use permit for commercial center Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans for commercial center Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department sch~mmp.696 9 Chapter 6: Vegetation and Wildlife :...?~'. Mitigation Measure 6.A,1. Emergent Wetland Complex V~rho: Applicant V~nnat: Provide wetland mitigation plan for emergent wetland complex When: Mitigation plan prepared as part of open space management plan (Mitigation Measure 7.6.1) Completion: Approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department_ Mitigation Measure 6.B.1. Aquatic habitat Who: Applicant What: Provide on-site aquatic habitat. a. Complete survey in spring season before construction begins b Determine minimum area with a jurisdictional wetland survey c Provide buffers around replacement habitat. d Habitat restoration plan designed by a qualified biologist. e Cattle grazing shall not be allowed in the vicinity of the replacement pond habitat When: (a) Pre-construction survey to be completed in spring season before construction begins. Co,c,d,e) Mitigation plan prepared as part of open space management plan (Mitigation Measure 7.6,1) Timing: (a) Survey completed before commencement of grading (b,c,d,e) Mitigation plan approved in conjunction with approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mi~gation Measure 6.C.1. Grassland Reve~etation and Habitat Surve~ Who: Applicant what: Provide mitigation plan for grassland revegetafion when: Condition of tentative map approval. Mitigation plan prepared as part of open space management plan submittal (Mitigation Measure 7.6,1). Preconstmction survey for burrowing owl conducted -' during wintering and nesting seasons. Completion: Mitigation plan approved in conjunction with approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6.C.2. Stock Grazing Who: Applicant What: Control stock grazing on the site. When: Grazing standards prepared as part of open space management plan submittal (Mitigation Measure 7.6.1) Completion: Open space management plan approved in conjunction with grading plan approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department ~¢h'~mp.7~ 1 0 Mitigation Measure 6.D.i. Tree Survey and Proiect Redesign V~rho: Applicant .: What: Conduct a heritage tree survey; make feasible readjustments in site plan to reduce tree loss. -'v When: Condition of tentative map approval ~'"' Completion: Approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6.D.2. Tree Survey and Proiect Redesign Who: Applicant What: Provide measures to reduce risk of damage for trees to remain. V~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Any necessary site redesign completed before SDR approval. Protective measures in place before commencement of grading. Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Depatiment Mitigation Measure 6.D.3. Tree Replacement (see also Mitigation Measure 7.6.1) Who: Applicant What: Provide oak woodland mitigation plan for trees to be removed When: Condition of tentative map approval - - Completion: Oak woodland mitigation plan approved as part of open spa~ management plan, in conjunction with grading permit approval. Monitoring of replacement trees to take place over five-year period following planting date. who Verifies: Dublin Planuing Department Mitigation Measure 6.E.1. 'Plant Material (see also Mitigation Measure 5.A.2) Who: Applicant What: Use only non-invasive plants; restrict use of non-native plants when: Condition of planned development prezoning, as part of landscape plan requirement Completion: Approval of final landscape plan Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6.E.2 Control of Pets Who: Animal Control Officer What: Enforce dog leash law When: Commences with residential occupancy Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: Dublin Police Services Mitigation Measure 6.F.1. Herbicide Restrictions v~rho: Applicant obtains from qualified chemical control personnel; Homeowners' Association monitors. What: Preparation of standards for use of herbicides When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Ongoing monitoring by Homeowners' Association Who Verifies: Dublin~Plarming Department Chapter 7: Public Facilities and Services Mitigation Measure 7.1.1. Water Conservation Who: Applicant What: Incorporate DSKSD Water Use Reduction Plan in project approval When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final landscape plan approval. Verify that the following items are included: water efficient irrigation systems, drought resistant plant p__~ettes, recycled water use. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Depa~iment Mitigation Measure 7.1.2. DSRSD Standards Who: Applicant What: Provide design and construction of all water system / facilities in accordance with DSRSD standards. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Public improvement plan approval: verify that DSKSD standards are met. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD. Mitigation Measure 7.1.3. Pressure Zones Who: Applicant What: Provide Pressure Zone 4 and water storage facility When: Condition of tentative map approval ..,~. Completion: Public improvement plan approval. :" Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD. Mitigation Measure 7.1.4. Verification of Water Service Who: Applicant What: Require that the foll6~ving are completed. - Affected special districts shall certify in writing that the proposed development can be served. -- Attach the appropriate conditions of approval for service needs/requirements. -- Verify that institutional problems of providing Zone 7 water have been resolved. -- A will-serve letter from DSRSD shall be submitted to City When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.1.5. Water Service for Fire Protection ~rho: Applicant What: Insure that necessary water flows and pressures are available for fn'e protection. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Public improvement plan approval. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DR.FA Mitigation Measure 7.1.6. Water Service for Fire Protection Who: Applicant ~".:. What: Reserve adequate rights-of-way for facilities. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation v~rho Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD and DRFA Mitigation Measure 7.1.7. Phasing of Water System Who: Applicant What: Plan development of the project area to be phased to facilitate orderly extensions of the water distribution system. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Public improvement plan approval. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitization Measure 7.1.8: Existing Wells· Who: City of Dublin What: Verify that all regulations regarding existing wells are met. When: Condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Before issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 7.2.1: Wastewater Disposal Capacity Who: Applicant What: Provide will-serve letter from DSRSD to City When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to approval of grading permit or rex:ordation of final map Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.2: Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Who: Applicant What: Arrange with DSRSD for updating of collection system modeling When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of detailed wastewater improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.3: Wastewater Connections Who: Applicant What: Enforce requirements for wastewater connections When: Requirements for wastewater connections shall be a condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to approval of grading permit or recordation of final map. Under hardship conditions, an extension of time not to exceed two years may be granted. Vrlao Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.4: Use of Recycled Water ::~'~ .' Who: Applicant V~rhat: Provide recycled water systems to certain landscaped areas in keeping with a recycled water plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Recycled water development plan shall be approved by City, DSRSD, and other agency with jurisdiction before approval of public improvement plans. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.5' Annexation of Service Area who: Applicant What: Obtain annexation of development to DSKSD service area when: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.6: Improvement Standards for Wastewater Who: Applicant What: Design systems to comply with standards/furnish documentation that service can be provided ~rhen: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Before approval of detailed development plans or final map recordation ~rho Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.7: Sewer Permit Who: Applicant What: Provide copy of sewer permit certificate from DSKSD when: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before construction of wastewater facilities Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.8: Treated Effluent Standards Who: City of Dublin / DSRSD What: Provide treatment of wastewater to Regional Water Quality Control Board standards When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Recordation of final map Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Depa~lment Mitigation Measure 7.2.9: Separation of Water Systems Who: City of Dublin What: Verify that DSRSD has approved any recycled water plans for compliance with water separation standards. ~rhen: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department ..Mitigation Measure 7.2.10: Documents Who: Applicant What: Provide separate documents/drawings for the recycled water system When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Approval of improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.11: Recycled Water Reservoir Who: Applicant What: Provide features to prevent eutrophic conditions in recycled water reservoir [if included in project], arrange for ownership by DSRSD or equivalent entity, calculate storage needs~ provide for overflow control, and obtain necessary permits. ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before final map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2.12: Coordinate Planning Who: Applicant What: Coordinate planning of recycled water tine and pump station with DSKSD. When: During development of improvement plans Completion: Approval of improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 Fire Protection Response Time Mitigation Who: (1) Dublin City Council (2) Applicant What: (1) Adopt General Plan Amendments 2.1.4.C and 8.2.2, regarding fire protection response time. (2) Provide onsite fire protection measures, pay impact fees and fund facilities When: (1) At time of General Plan Amendment consideration (2) Condition of tentative map approval Completion:. (1) Adoption of General Plan Amendment (2) Before project occupancy Who Verifies: (1) Dublin Planning Department, (2) Dublin Building Department Mitigation Measure 7.3.2: Fire Protection Measures Who: Applicant What: Provide on-site fire protection measures, including irrigated borders, emergency vehicle access, £n-ebreaks, and other measures ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before project occupancy Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.3.3: Water Supply and Fire Hydrants V~rho: Applicant ~rhat: Provide water mains and fire hydrants When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Approval of public improvements Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.3.4: Construction Materials ~rho: Applicant V~rhat: Use fn-e-resistant construction mater/als and methods When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of building permits Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department Mitigation Measure 7.3.5: Landscape Management [see also Mitigation Measure 5.A.2, Master Landscape Plan] Who: Applicant What: Landscape plan for project shall avoid use of flammable plant species in landscaping. Prepare a fuel management plan. Brhen: Condition of planned development rezoning COmpletion: Before issuance of grading permit V~rho Verifies: Dublin Planning Depa~ament ::" Mitigation Measure 7.3.6: Street Design Who: Applicant What: Provide a redesign of the project for review and approval by DP_FA and Dublin Pub. Works Dept. When: Before tentative map approval Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Dept., in consultation with DP,_FX. Mitigation Measure 7.3.7: Education/Inspection Program Who: Applicant/Dougherty Regional Fire Authority What: Implement an education or self-inspection program to assure that fire sprinkler systems remain in service. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Pro~mram in place before project occupancy; ongoing implementation of program Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department Mitigation Measure 7.3.8: Education Program/Notice of Expected Response Who: Applicant/Homeowners' Association What: Make available to residents a Community Education Program focusing on the mitigation of medical emergencies, and provide notice of unique response time. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Program in place before residential occupancy; ongoing provision of Community Education Program. V~rho Verifies: Dublin Planning Department__ Mitigation Measure 7.4.1' Police Personnel and Equipment Who: Applicant, in consultation with Dublin Police Services What: Prepare a budget strategy to meet police security needs V, rhen:Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before project occupancy Who Verifies: Dublin City Managers office Mitieation Measure 7.4.2: Regional Park Security Who: Applicant What: Provide verification that the East Bay Regional Park District or other entity will provide security services for the portion of the site proposed for dedication as regional parkland. ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before final map recordation ~rho Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.4.3: Police Services Review of Proiect Who: City Planning Department What: Incorporate pOlice Services recommendations for site-related security design issues. When: a~ Residential proi.ect design: during tentative map process b. Commercial development: during ~)nditional use permit review for commercial development. Completion: a. Residential development: tentative map approval b. Commercial development: Conditional use permit approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measures 7.5.1' Electricity. Natural Gas. and Telephone V~rho: Applicant What: Provide documentation that services can be provided When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation Who Ver/fies: Dublin Planuing Department/Public Works Department ~h~rmap.696 ] 7 Mitigation Measure 7.5.2: Service Report V~nno: Applicant ::'~-' :, What: Submit service report to Planning Department · When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before Public Improvement Plan approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.6.1' Open Space Management Plan [see also Mitigation Measures 6.A. 1, 6.B.1,-~.C.1, 6.C.2, 6.D.3, 7.6.5, and 7.6.10.] Who: Applicant What: Preparation of Open Space Management Plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation ( or grading permit approval, if this precedes final map recordation) Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department. Mitigation Measure 7.6.2: Neighborhood Park Facilities Who: Dublin Cit), Council What: Select option which ~411 satisfy the project's need for local parkland When: Evaluate options during tentative map review Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department in consultation with Par-ks and Community Services Director Mitigation Measure 7.6.3: Community Par'ks :"' v~rho: Dublin CiD: Council What: Require in-lieu fees or land dedication for community parkland When: Evaluate during tentative map review Completion: Tentative map approval .. Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department in consultation with Parks and Community Services Director Mitigation Measure 7.6.4: Assessment of Park Sites Who: Applicant v, rhat: Provide analysis of park sites to determine developability. When: During tentative map review CompL-~rion: Tentative map approval V~o Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Par-ks and Community Services Director Mitigation Measure 7.6.5: Internal and Perimeter Open Space (see also Mitigation Measure 7.6.1) Who: Applicants What: Provide internal open space program for access, ownership, maintenance and management When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation or grading permit approval V~rho Verifies: CiD' Planning Department, and/or Public Works Department, in consultation with Parks and · J~'~ Community Services Director. (- [No mitigation measures were assigned to numbers 7.6.6 and 7.6.7] ..: Mitieation Measure 7.6.8: Regional Trail Who: City of Dublin V~%mt: Verify that the applicants have provided a trail system and staging area, and construction plans in keeping with Regional Park District requirements. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Parks and Community Services Director, Public Works Department and with East Bay Regional Park District Mitigation Measure 7.6.9: Trail Linkage and Access Who: Applicant What: Coordinate efforts to link regional trail to Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Recordation of final map Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department, and Par'ks and Community Services Director Mitigation Measure 7.6.10: Resource Protection Area (see also Mitigation Measure 7.6.1) V~rho: Applicant What: Resource Protection Area: provide land dedication, access and maintenance arrangements -::.. When: Condition of tentative map approval '~.~...?. Completion: Final map recordation Who Verifies: Parks and Community Services Department/Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.8.1' Municipal Set,rices - V,~no: CiD' of Dublin What: Assess other municipal service needs When: Before development agreement approval Completion: Development agreement approval Who Verifies: Dublin City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 7.9.1: Solid Waste Service Who: Applicant What: Furnish City with "bill serve" letter from solid x~ste company when: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department .~:hh~mp.796 Mitigation Measure 7.9.2: Commercial Recycling ..:i'.~:. Who: Applicant · :j What: Provide designation on plans of specific areas for recycling When: During detailed review of commercial plans Completion: Commercial conditional use permit approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.10.1: School District Boundary Who: City of Dublin What: Verify resolution of District boundary dispute ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to residential occupancy Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.10.2: School Fees and Financial Plan Who: Applicant. What: Prepare financial plan to identify school funding needs and fee levels When: Condition of prezoning Completion: Prior to tentative map approval who Verifies: Dublin City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 7.10.3' School Siting Who: City of Dublin what: Consult applicable school district about any necessary siting of schools to serve students from project when: During tentative map review process ComPletion: Approval of tentative map Who Verifies! City Planning Department Chat~ter 8: Hvdmlo~ov Mitigation Measure 8.1.1' Master Drainage Plan Who: Applicant What: Prepare a Master Drainage Plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Approval of improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with ACFCWCD Mitigation Measure 8.1.2: Flood Control ~rho: Applicant What: Provide facilities to alleviate dox~mstream flooding When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval -- Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with ACFCWCD ~¢hkrnrnp.796 20 Mitigation Measure 8.1.3: Coordination with Other Agencies Who: Applicant and City of Dublin ~"' What: Inter-agency coordination of permit processing When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.1.4: Application of Design Standards Who: Applicant What: Meet City and ACFCWCD Zone 7 policies and standards When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with ACFCWCD Mitigation Measure 8.1.5: Off-Site Flooding Who: Applicant What: Provide additional investigation of off-site flooding potential in Master Drainage Plan (See Mitigation Measure 8.1.1) ~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval ~rho Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 8.1.6 and 8.1.7: Erosion Improvements/Other Drainaee Facilities Who: Applicant What: Design and implement standards for drainage and erosion mitigation When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Gr~cling plan approval Who Verifies: City of Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.1.8: Watershed Diversion Who: Applicant ~rhat: Obtain approval from ACFCWCD for proposed watershed diversion When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: CiD' of Dublin Public Works Department Mitieation Measure 8.2.1: Water Quality Report Vffho: Applicant What: Prepare water quality report When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: City of Dublin Public Works Department -~. .::..:?' 21 Mitigation Measure 8.2.2: Treated Water Discharge ..:~'~:.~ Who: City of Dublin ". V~rhat: Verify that DSKSD has initiated permitting processes with appropriate regulators When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Improvement plan approval ~rho Verifies: Dublin Public Works Depm-i~uent Mitigation Measure 8.2.3: Wells and Septic Tanks Who: Applicant What: Address the issue of wells and septic tanks (abandonment and sealing) When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before issuance of grading permit within existing residential areas who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.2.4: Reclaimed Water System ~rho: Applicant What: Provide detailed plan for the reclaimed water system When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department .Chapter 9: Geolo,o3.', Soils~ and Grading Mitigation Measures 9.A.1 through 9.A.3: Grading Plan; Balancing..C_rrading; Special Grading Methods Who: Applicant What: Provide detailed grading plan; balance grading; use special grading methods When: Cendition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with Planning Department Mitigation Measure 9.B.l: Slope Stabili~ Who: Apphcant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants ~rhat: Identify unstable slope conditions and provide recommendations for stabilization; show anticipated ex'tent of remedial grading on tentative map When: Prior to submittal of tentative map Completion: Approval of tentative map Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mit/~ation Measures 9.B.2: Landslide Stabilization V~rho: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants ,~. What: Identify unstable slope conditions and provide recommendations for stabilization; show anticipated extent of remedial grading on tentative map When: Prior to submittal of tentative map Completion: Approval of tentative map Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Dep~a~ment Mitigation Measures 9.B.3: Control of Surface and Subsurface Drainaqe Who: Applicant and their geotechuical engineering and civil engineering consultants V~rhat: Provide design of drainage in ail landslide repairs V~rhen: During preparation of improvement plans Completion: Approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9.B.4: Soil Creep. See Mitigation Measure 9.B.1. Mitigation Measures 9.B.5: Setbacks. Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants What: Identify setback zones for landslide hazard areas When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Issuance of grading permit ,5'-~'~.~, Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9.B.6 and 9.B.7: Slope Stability. Who: Applicant and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants What: Evaluate stability of natural and proposed slopes; design grading plan to enhance slope stability When: During preparation of grading plan Completion: Approval of grading plan Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.B.8: Geologic Ho?~ard Abatement District (GHAD) Who: Applicants and their geotechnical engineering consultants What: Establish district or equivalent entity to repair and maintain slopes and geologic hazards When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: District or approved equivalent entity established prior to Final Map recordation (or grading permit approval, if this precedes Final Map recordation) Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department, in consultation with City Attorney Mitigation Measure 9.C.1: Erosion Control Plan -::.>~-. Who: Applicants and their civil and geotechnical engineering consultants ': What: Design of erosion control measures When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9.C.2 and 9.C.3: Erosion Control Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants What: Construction of temporary and permanent erosion control structures When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Ongoing monitoring Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department and Geologic Hazard Abatement District Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 and 9.D.2: Fill Settlement Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants What: Analyze fill settlement potential. Provide fill design recommendations to minimize damage to the development When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: DubLin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9.D.3: Development Design and Construction Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants What: Adjust building sites, streets, and open space if needed to mitigate fill settlement impacts. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to issuance of building permits and installation of street improvements. Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.D.z[: Removal and Replacement of Compressible Soils Who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultant What: Evaluate removal and replacement of compressible soils .in fill areas When: Condition of tentative map approval ' Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.D.5: Settlement Monitoring ~nno: Applicants and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants What: Monitoring of £fll settlement before building construction, if needed When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Issuance of building permits (for structures in areas of deep fill); installation of public improvements (for utilities and other improvements in areas of deep filI) Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.E.I: Expansion Potential Evaluation Who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultants ... ~:':-~' What: Assessment of earth material expansion potential as part of detailed geotechnical investigation When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval V~rho Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.E.2: Foundation and Pavement Design Who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultants V~rhat: (a) Design foundations, pavement sections and flatwork for minimizing damage due to expanding subgrade materials; Co) Following grading, evaluate the corrosivity of soils. V~rhen: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to approval of building plans and improvement plans Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department/Building Department Mitigation Measure 9.E.3: Moisture Conl~ol Who: Applicants, their geotechnical engineering consultants and their contractors What: Make recommendations for selective removal and/or moisture conditioning of expansive subgrade mater/als When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before commencement of building construction ~rho Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.F.l: Detailed Seismic Hazard Evaluation Who: Applicants and their geologic consultants What: Detailed evaluation of seismic hazards including: fault mapping, fault"activity, ground shaking, seismically-induced slope failures, liquefaction and lurching When: Before submittal of tentative map Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9.F.2: Earthquake Resistant Design Who: Apphcants and their geotechnical and engineering consultants what: Design structures and grading for minimizing damage to improvements caused by seismic events. when: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: builcling permit issuance Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department, in consultation with Public Works Dept. Mit/cation Measure 9.F.3: Inactive Faults ."-:'" Who: Applicants and their geotechnical and engineering consultants What: Design structures and grading for minimizing damage to improvements caused by inactive faults. When: Before submittal of tentative map Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9.G.1 and 9.G.2: Identification of Ground Water Conditions and Utilization of Ground Water Data who: Applicants and their geotechnical consultants what: Characterize ground water Conditions on the site and provide recommendations for minimizing damage to the development due to undesirable effects of ground water When: Conditions of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitieation Measure 9.G.3' Subdrainage Who: Applicants, their geotechnical engineering consultants and contractors ~rhat: Provide plan for subdrain installation when: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval (plans); after review of final grading reports (monitoring) who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9.G.4: Irrigation Control Who: Applicants' landscape architect, homeowners' associations/maintenance personnel What: Design and control of irrigation practices to minimize impacts on ground water regime ~rhen: Commences prior to final inspection for building permits . Completion: Ongoing monitoring - Who Verifies: GHAD or approved equivalent entity, in consultation with Dublin Public Works Department and Homeowners' Association Mifieation Measure 9.H. 1: Excavation/Blasting who: Developers and their geotechnical engineering consultants and contractors What: Evaluate bedrock excavation characteristics and determine excavation methodology to minimize environmental impacts When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading permit approval who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Chapter 10: Fiscal Impacts Since fiscal impacts are not environmental impacts under CEQA, no mitigation monitoring is necessary for Chapter 10. Chapter 11: Noise Mitigation 11.A. 1: Construction Noise - Existing Residences '.: --~-~-.. Who: Applicant ~rhat: Minimize construction noise impact by arranging for residents to live offsite, or by phasing grading operations. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading permit approval (pro_q.cedure in place); completion of grading (end of mitigation requirement) Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 1 I.B. 1: Noise Control Plan Who: Applicant What: Prepare noise control plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 11.B.2: Proiect Redesima Who: Applicant What: Redesign project in keeping with City noise element standards When: Before tentative map submittal Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Chapter 12: Air QuaIi .ty Mitigation Measure I2.A.l' Implement Dust Control Measures Who: Applicant What. Detailed construction dust control measures When: Conditions of tentative map approval Completion: Grading permit approval (preparation of specifications for dust control) Completion of grading (implementation of dust control measures) Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Depza~ent Mitigation Measure 12.B. 1' Construction Emissions Who: Applicants, under direction of City What: Monitor construction equipment to assure compliance with existing emission standards When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Completion of construction Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 12.D.l: Implement Control Measures Specified in Air Quality Attainment Plans Who: Applicant What: Implement control measures specified in air quality attainment plans When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Recordation of final map, for construction-related measures; ongoing, for long-term attainment m.__easures Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 12.D.2: Provide Physical Facilities in Proiect Design Who: Applicant What: Provide facilities for nonmotorized transportation When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Recordation of £mal map Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 12.F.l: On-Site Fuel Combustion Who: Applicant What: Specify installation of only EPA certified woodburning stoves or fn'eplaces When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Building permit approval -~.. Who Verifies: Dublin Building Department Mitigation Measure 12.G.l: Implement the AQMD's Fugitive Dust Rule Who: Applicant What: Implement rules for controlling fugitive dust When: Condition of tentative map approyal Completion: End of construction Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Chapter 13: Ener~.' Conservation Mitigation Measure 13.B.l: Lot Orientation for Ener.gy. Conservation ~rho: Applicant What: Redesign project to improve lot orientation ~rhen: As part of tentative map preparation Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department, in consultation with. the Building Department Chapter 14: Cultural Resources Mit/~ation Measure 14.A.l' Notification Procedures ~. Who: City of Dublin grading inspector What: Stop .work if archaeological materials are found When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: End of construction period Who Verifies: City Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 14.B.l' Rock Walls - Shell Ridge Who: Applicant ~rhat: Adjust fencing or other development activity to avoid damage to historic rock walls When: Condition of tentative map approval - Completion: Issuance of grading permit Who Verifies: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 14.C.1: Mitigation Plan - Historical Resources Who: Applicants' consultants - archaeologists What: Complete research and prepare mitigation plan for historic resources When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval V~o Verifies: City Planning Department, in consultation with Public Works Department ~--...~. Chapter 15: Other EnvironmentaI Issues Mitigation Measures 15.A. 1 and 15.A.2: Removal of Hazardous Materials/Transformers 'Who: Applicant what: Remove hazardous materials from site When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before general site grading begins who Verifies: City Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 15.A.3: Wells and Septic Systems See monitoring program for Mitigation Measure 8.2.3. Mitigation Measure 15.A.4: Further Assessment of Hazardous Materials who: Applicant What: Assess hazardous materials encountered during grading When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: End of mass grading phase Who Verifies: City Public Works Department ~!'- Chapter 16: Other Legal Requirements Mitigation Measure 16-1' Excess Services/Capacity Who: Applicant What: Do not provide excess capacity in utility lines When: Preparation of detailed improvement plans Completion: Approval of improvement pl.an_.s Who Verifies: City Public Works Department Mifieation Measure 16-2: General Plan Amendment Who: Dublin City Council ~rhat: Adopt General Plan Amendment 5.1, stating that other sections of the Western Extended Planning Area shall have primary access via the Eden Canyon interchange When: Consideration of General Plan Amendment during public heatings Completion: Adoption of General Plan Amendment Who Verifies: City Planning Department ...Chapter 18: Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Measure 18.2.1: Tri-Vallev Transportation Plan Who: Applicant ~rhat: Contribute fair share of traffic fees for regional improvements When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Per development agreement with City Who Verifies: Dublin Public Works Department Mifization Measure 18.3.1: Water Supply Who: City of Dublin What: Support and coordinate areawide efforts to address water supply impacts When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD Mitigation Measures 18.3.2 and 18.3.4: Coordinafion/DSRSD Master Plannin~ Who: City of Dublin What: Coordinate and support DSRSD master plamaing efforts When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: Cit3,' Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 18.3.3: Water Recycling V, rho: Applicant What: Incorporate water recycling facilities into project V~rhen: In conjunction w/th development of detailed improvement pla~s Completion: Approval of improvement plans Who Verifies: Public Works Department, in consultation with DSRSD Mifization Measure 18.3.5: Solid Waste --- Who: City of Dublin What: Continue to comply with the requirements of the Calif. Integrated Waste Management Act When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 18.3.6: Police Protection Who: City Police Services What: Continue to use budget strategy to cover the costs of additional police protection for new development. When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: Police Services Mitigation Measure 18.3.7: Parks and Recreation Who: City Recreation Department What: Continue to implement Parks and Recreation Master Plan When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: City Parks and Community Services Depamuent " Mitigation Measure 18.3.8: Schools Who: City of Dublin What: Continue to coordinate efforts with school district When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 18.3.9: Fire Station Site for Cumulative Development Who: City of Dublin V~rhat: Require reservation ora fire station site on the project site. %%then: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map recordation Who Verifies: City Planning Department, in consultation with DRFA sda'~n,n.,,~796 31 Mitigation Measure 18.3.10: Fire Facility Costs Who: Beneficiaries of new fire station What: Pay fair share of costs for the facility When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Development plan approval or project approval for individual projects. Who Verifies: City Planning Department, in consultation with DRFA Mitigation Measure 18.3.11: Other Cumulative Issues Who: City of Dublin What: Continue to monitor other cumulative impacts on public facilities When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 18.4.1' Cumulative Loss of Open Space (Private Rangeland) and Landscape Alteration Who: City of Dublin What: Support efforts of the East Bay Regional Park District and other entities to secure open space ~rhen: Ongoing Completion: OngOing ~rho Verifies: City Parks and Community Services Department Mitigation Measure 18.4.3: Heritage Tree Protection Who: City of Dublin What: Adopt a heritage tree ordinance or take equivalent measures when: At time of zoning update Completion: Prior to completion of zoning update who Verifies: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 18.4.4: Cultural Resource Protection Who: City of Dublin what: Continue efforts to protect cultural resources ~rhen: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verifies: 'Cio Planning Department.