Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 17-14 Dublin Rch Subarea 3 CEQA RESOLUTION NO. 17 - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE DUBLIN RANCH SUBAREA 3 PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PLPA 2013-00033 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Kevin Fryer, has submitted a Planning Application for residential development on Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 (Subarea 3) which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site. The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and a Development Agreement. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the General Plan amendment for Subarea 3 would change the land use designations as follows: reduce Medium-High Density Residential from 8.6 acres 7.5 acres and move this use from the northeast area of the site to the western area of the site along Lockhart Street; increase Medium Density Residential from 27.2 acres to 38 acres along either side of an open space corridor; designate 14.5 acres of existing Open Space as Rural Residential/Agriculture (as a partial replacement for 24.9 acres of existing Open Space land use designation proposed for residential and rural residential/agriculture use); and increase the existing designated Stream Corridor from 1.3 acres to 2 acres. No changes are proposed for the existing 2-acre Neighborhood Park designation; and WHEREAS, the project would also rezone Subarea 3 to the Planned Development zoning district and would approve a related Stage 1 Development Plan and Development Agreement for future development of up to 437 dwelling units along either side of a stream corridor and open space area; and WHEREAS, the Project site is vacant and undeveloped, with two small hills in the northeast corner of the site. A vegetated stream corridor flows from the northwest corner for approximately 1,000 feet and is collected into a storm drain pipe in the middle of the site. The site is bounded by Central Parkway to the north, Dublin Boulevard to the south, Fallon Road to the east, and Lockhart Street to the west. WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (resolution incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 is in Dublin Ranch Area B in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. On October 10, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance 4-94 prezoning the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch to PD-Planned Development in accordance with the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Following annexation of Dublin Ranch, the City Council adopted Ordinance 24-97 on December 2, 1997 rezoning Dublin Ranch Areas B-E to PD-Planned Development and adopting the then-required Land Use and Development Plan (LUDP) by Resolution 141-97. The LUDP established permitted uses, development standards and other regulations for future development of Areas B-E. Subarea 3 was anticipated for up to 485 units on approximately 64 acres of Medium High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential uses on either side of an open space corridor; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration (ND) for the Area B-E project (Resolution 140-97, incorporated herein by reference). The ND concluded that the potentially significant impacts of developing Areas B-E had been adequately described and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and that no new or more severe significant impacts would result from future development in Areas B-E; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, for the Subarea 3 Project, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated January 2014 describing the Subarea 3 Project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIR and ND. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated January 28, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and Page 2 of 4 WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-03 recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum for the Subarea 3 project, Resolution 14-04 recommending that the City Council adopt the Subarea 3 General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendments and Resolution 14-04 recommending that the City Council adopt the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan , which resolutions are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Subarea 3 Development Agreement, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 11, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 Development Agreement for the Planning Commission and recommended approval of the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2104, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-09 recommending that the City Council approve the Development Agreement and finding that the environmental impacts of the Agreement were addressed in the Addendum; WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated February 18, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Subarea 3 project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EDEIR and ND and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Subarea 3 Project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior CEQA documents, the City Council Staff Report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially Page 3 of 4 more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study and Addendum did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 project, including the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, the PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and the Development Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of February, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Haubert, and Mayor Sbranti NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mayor ATTES P- City Clerk Reso No. 17-14,Adopted 2-18-14, Item 6.1 Page 4 of 4 �w. r Dublin Ranch Sub Area 3 GPA & SPA PLPA-2013-00033 INITIAL STUDY! CEQA ADDENDUM pg9 Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag,Urban Planner RECE tat) JAN 21 2014 January 28,2014 DUBLIN PLANNING EXHIBIT A I I Table of Contents I Introduction 2 Applicant 3 Project Location and Context 3 I Prior Environmental Review Documents 3 Project Description 4 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 15 Determination 15 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 17 I Attachment to Initial Study 30 1. Aesthetics 30 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources 33 3. Air Quality 34 4. Biological Resources 36 5. Cultural Resources 43 6. Geology and Soils 45 1 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 48 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 48 9. Hydrology and Water Quality 51 10. Land Use and Planning 53 11. Mineral Resources 54 12. Noise 55 13. Population and Housing 57 14. Public Services 58 15. Recreation 60 16. Transportation/Traffic 61 17. Utilities and Service Systems 64 1 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 67 Initial Study Preparers 68 Agencies and Organizations Consulted 68 References 68 I r I I I 1 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.Because the proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils, Geology and Seismicity,Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for multiple properties in the Eastern Dublin area, including Planning Area A (approximately 363 acres of land) and Areas B- E (approximately 468.5 acres of land), all located north of the I-580 Freeway, east of Tassajara Road and west of Fallon Road. This will be referred to as the "1997 ND," approved by the City Council on June 17, 1997,by City Council Resolution No. 140-97. This CEQA document analyzed amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, proposed Planned Development rezoning to ensure consistency between City zoning an the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The 1997 ND included the approximately 64 acres of land in Sub Area 3 of Planning Area B, which is the subject of this analysis. The subject of this Initial Study is a proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment and a Planned Development (PD) rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan applications to develop portions of the 64-acre site located in the Eastern Dublin portion of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, internal roadways, open spaces and other related improvements. I City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 mi a Applicant: r iiiii Integral Communities 500 La Gonda Way, Suite 102 iiiDanville CA 94526 Attn: Kevin Fryer (925) 899-5065 Project Location and Context The project is located in the southeastern portion of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the I project site is located south of Central Parkway, west of Fallon Road and north of Dublin Boulevard. Lockhart Street forms the western boundary of the site. The . Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the site is 985-0027-12. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of Subarea 3 in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent creeks. • The site is currently vacant and is characterized by relatively flat areas on the west side of the site with two small hills in the northeast corner rising to a height of 470 above sea level. The site generally slopes from northeast corner down to the southwest corner of the site. Slopes range from 5 to 50%. Two small "outparcels" are located in the southeast area of the site as identified on Exhibit 2. These parcels are not part of the application. In addition to the two small hills on the'site. a vegetated stream corridor exists on the northwest portion of the property. The corridor extends for a length of approximately 1000 feet in a northwest-southeast direction. Lockhart Street, has been developed for attached Land to the west of the site, west of Lockh P dwelling units or is vacant. Land north of the site is currently vacant and is planned for a future expansion of Fallon Sports Park. Property east of the site is vacant. Land use south of the project site includes a combination of commercial uses (Fallon Gateway Center) and vacant land. Prior Environmental Review Documents The project has been included in two previous CEQA documents, as noted below: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment(Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern • Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the j "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts: I City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Pm al Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities;Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity;Biological Resources;Visual Resources;Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93) Ifor the following impacts: Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, I extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation I of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality,noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. In 1994, the 1,538 acre Dublin Ranch portion of Eastern Dublin was E 1 prezoned to the Planned Development zoning district (Ordinance 4-94) and subsequently annexed to the City. 1997 Negative Declaration In 1997, a Negative Declaration was prepared for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning for approximately 453 acres of land, identified as Dublin Ranch Areas B-E and including Subarea 3 of Area B. The ND was approved by the City Council on November 18, 1997 by Resolution No. 140-97. The 1997 General Plan and Specific Plan amendments did not affect Subarea 3; the PD rezoning supplemented the prior prezoning and adopted a District Planned Development Plan and Land Use and Development Plan, in accordance with then-existing PD requirements (Resolution 141-97). The PD rezoning also included permitted uses, development standards and design guidelines applicable to Areas B-E, including Subarea 3. The related Negative Declaration and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA checklist, updating them from the prior EDEIR analysis. . Project Description IOverview. The proposed project includes construction of up to 437 attached and detached dwellings on the site, grading of the site, extension of utilities and related Iimprovements. The applicant licant has requested a rovals of the following in order to implement the I project: amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan. Other City approvals, including but not limited to a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be required to implement the } I proposed project. I City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 N Existing Land Use Approval. The City of Dublin has approved a development plan for the site that would allow construction of up to 485 dwellings on the site (City Council I Resolution 141-97, November 18, 1997) generally in the northeast and west/southwest portions of the site, on either side of the stream corridor and designated open space. I Development Plan. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 3. As shown, residential development would generally occur in the western and north eastern portions of the site. A stream corridor located in a general northwest- ' south-east direction would fulfill environmental requirements for approved development projects elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. The southwest portion of the site would be reserved for Rural Residential/Agriculture uses, primarily open space. IThe City of Dublin, through the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, has previously approved a range of land uses on this site, consisting of a mix of Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Stream Corridor, Open Space and Park. Existing land use designations would allow a range of 287 to 596 dwellings on the site as well as 24.9 acres of Open Space, a 2.0-acre Stream Corridor and a 2.0-acre Neighborhood Park. Proposed uses that would be allowed under the amended General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Planned Development rezoning process would include 437 total dwellings units as shown on Table 1. Table 1. Proposed Development Summary-Subarea 3 Co Land Use Type Acres Max.Dwellings Density (du/ac.) Med.Density Residential 38.0 330 8.6 Medium High Density Residential 7.5 107 14.2 C . Rural Residential/Agriculture 14.5 -- -- Stream Corridor 2.0 1 Neighborhood Park 2.0 -- -- Total 64.0 437 -- , I Source: Project Applicant 2013 The proposed amendment would allow slightly fewer dwellings on the site than previously approved (485 approved v. 437 proposed) and would replace much of the current Open Space designated portion of the site with a Rural Residential/Agriculture (RR/A) land use designation. I City of Dublin Page 5 I Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 III W I 1 The applicant is proposing up to 107 multi-family dwellings in a row-condominium design. The proposal also includes up to 330 single-family homes. Proposed project 1 design is described below. Circulation and access. Vehicular entry to the site would be provided for the southern Iportion of the site at the existing intersection of Finnian Way and Lockhart Street. A second access would be provided on the northern frontage along Central Parkway I that would also provide access to Fallon Sports Park north of the project site. A traffic control device, either a stop sign or a traffic signal, would be installed at this intersection as determined by the Dublin Public Works Department. 1 The internal circulation system is proposed to include a mix of local public residential streets and private alleys. Local residential streets would have a width of 36 feet, curb to curb, and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. I A 10-foot of wide aved meandering trail and access path is proposed along the stream corridor. The trail would be a continuation of an existing multi-use trail that starts in the north-central portion of the Dublin Ranch development. The trail would provide a pedestrian and bike connection between the north and south portions of the site. Building architecture and design. Sub Area 3 is proposed as a mix of residential densities and product types. The project would have the higher density townhome product along Lockhart Street to blend with the projects to the west of the project. As E the project moves east the product would become less dense single-family homes. The northeastern corner of the project would accommodate single-family homes that would take advantage of the proximity of the project to the Fallon Community Sports Park to It the north. The proposed architectural design for all products is a contemporary craftsman with a blend of materials including stucco, siding,brick veneer, concrete tile and standing seam metal roofs with decorative elements including balconies, and similar features. The residential townhomes are designed as a "6-pack"building cluster with six dwellings with front doors facing onto landscaped common paseos (open space areas). Garages of these units would be accessed from common alleys. The floor plans of these 2 units are proposed to range in size from 1,902 s.f. to 2,170 s.f. Each of the units would i have a private deck for outdoor use. I The second housing type proposed in Sub Area 3 is a 3-story single family home to be located on a 30-ft. x 50-ft. lot. The front doors of this product would face either on a public street or on a common landscaped paseo. Garages would be accessed from private drive aisles. The floor plans include 3 and 4 bedrooms and range in size from 1,975 s.f. to 2,291 s.f. Each of the homes would have a private side yard for outdoor use. I The third housing proposed in Sub Area 3 is designed to be a single-family gtYp e p ro p dwelling located on either a 38-ft. x 48-ft. lot or a 48-ft. x 48-ft. lot. This two and three story product would include 3-4 bedrooms with some plans offering optional 5th I City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I bedrooms and range in size from 1,729 s.f. to 2,917 s.f. The front doors would front on a public street or on a common landscaped paseo, while the garages would be accessed from private drive aisles. Each home would have either a side or backyard for private outdoor use. The last housing type proposed for Sub Area 3 is a 6-unit cluster that would be located on 42, 45, and 54-foot wide and 48.5-foot deep lots. This product is designed to be more "traditionally oriented" with front doors off of the public street or adjacent to the garage on a private alley. The garages would be accessed from the public street or the private alley. This product ranges in size from 1,859 s.f. to 2,258 s.f. The majority of this product would be arranged into 6-unit clusters. Open Space. The existing stream corridor on the site would remain where it is currently located. A portion of the site (approx. 14.5 acres) is proposed to be redesignated from Open Space to Rural Residential/Agriculture which would allow for the flexibility of the site uses including allowing for viticulture. This would ensure that this portion of I the site would remain undeveloped. Visually Sensitive Ridgelands. Two hills designated as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands- Restricted Development" are located on the project site. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan states that these hillsides are to remain to provide a distinctive visual feature as well as providing a screen for development. The Specific Plan allows for development on the north side of these hills as long as they follow the policies in the Specific Plan. The proposed development would shift one of the existing hills from its present C location to the south to allow for less dense development on the north side of the hill. The hill would be re-graded to appear as a natural hillside and sensitive engineering design and gradual transitions are being proposed as well as revegetation to minimize visual impacts. For the majority of the northern portion of the site, the recreated hill would rise above the proposed development and block views of it. A small mound would be built on southeastern side of the development envelope and this area planted 3 to screen any potential views to the proposed homes. As proposed, the relocation of the hill would comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to provide a distinctive visual feature and screening for development. The neighborhood behind the hillside has been designed to fit with the natural contours and the building pads would step down gradually to match the existing topography of the back side of the hill. Where feasible the graded slopes are 3:1 or less. The cut and graded slopes would be re-vegetated with native vegetation or vineyards. !, The second existing hill would be removed and graded to accommodate proposed development. 1 Utility services. Domestic water, recycled and sewer service would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD). The project developer would be required to install mainline extension of sewer along the frontage, to the entrance of the project as well as the in-tract water and sewer lines and laterals. • City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 I as iii Preliminary storm drainage plans include collecting storm water runoff into a series of underground storm drain lines and transporting storm water flows in a southwest direction into a subregional stormwater detention and bio-filtration pond located iiiii immediately north of the I-580 freeway west of the site that has been sized to accommodate runoff from development of the site. Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the site to allow construction of the residential areas, roadways and related improvements. One existing hill on the site is proposed to be graded to accommodate proposed development with the other hill relocated to the south that would allow a portion of the development while screening the view of development from motorists along I-580. Grading is proposed to balance on the site. Retaining walls would be constructed on several of the proposed lots as well as in portions of open space areas. Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality. Inclusionary housing. The project's inclusionary housing requirement has been satisfied with the construction of The Groves residential project just west of the project site. PP Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required from the q City of Dublin to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment. The City of Dublin General Plan designates the Subarea 3 site as a mix of Medium High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Stream Corridor, Open Space and Neighborhood Park. The proposed General Plan land use designations would be generally consistent with current land use designations,but with a greater amount of Medium Density Residential and Open Space Uses and a smaller amount of Medium-High Density Residential. A portion of the current Open Space land use designation would be replaced with Medium Density Residential;most would be replaced with Rural Residential/Agriculture. Neighborhood Park and Stream Corridor uses would remain. Exhibit 3 shows existing and proposed General Plan land use designations. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment. Similar to the requested General Plan s Amendment, land use designations on the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use Maps would be changed to be consistent with the amended General Plan. PD Rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan . Previously approved land uses on the site would be replaced by a new Stage 1 Development Plan to reflect the proposed project, as shown on Exhibit 3. In addition, the following City approvals are required in order to construct the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Stage 2 Development Plan. The Stage 2 approval would establish final land uses, land use intensity and development regulations for the project. ISite Development Review (SDR). An SDR Permit is required to approve the exterior designs of structures,landscaping,project fencing, lighting and similar project Idetails. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(s). Tentative and Final subdivision maps are required to create individual buildings lots, roads, easements and similar elements. 1 I I; 1 Ii 1 1 I 1 I 1 II I City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 em a di ■tot 1 v Antiac 8 4 San ballan • Francisco - Project Site Dublin 4 San V . Tracy Francisco Pacific Ocean Bay 84 Livermore 1 T_ r ,. its 0 " 10 Miles San Jose I ell i 0 , 1 uY 9 i -- 4 Detail C '.'.;.-::,4c.,..;„ �h F Santa r Cruz l EXHIBIT 1 3 I REGIONAL LOCATION SUB AREA 3 i I-08-2014 16:47:27 I Thauar P:\1972E\PLN\CEOA\Ezhi—RagionaLoc01i0n.d.q . i I I I CoS�AcO\ ill Cow' �A CO' I 40 r DUBLIN RANCH DRIVE E . ,. 2 DUBLIN r, E .,„ ,: E...... , ., PARKWAY SUBAREA 3 PROJECT AREA DUBLIN BOULEVARD S 1-580 i i o 1=4 ' E o ve 0 I 5. PLEASANTON d N fI I EXHIBIT 2 I SITE CONTEXT SUB AREA 3 1-08-2014 16143:35 h4haaa P:\10726\HIV\CEOA\Exh2-KeiritYNaP.84O I I I I i , I 1 , i I , I 1 , 1 1 1 1 ' ' \ __ t 1 • f 1 , • t I it 11 t \ 1 Y,,.....\\ 2 � I ..-.."*"....} ..\ "Lir i) t \ 1 11 I ; 11 1 / \I ` II t RR/A ' I /I il ,NP 1 ......0... ....7 NOT A PART 1 ?ti: 1 W NOTAPART .■ '/ 1 1 I I < / --1 t t t 7 , 1 t ♦i- -.J t I � -..... , I - EXHIBIT 3 I STAGE I PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUB AREA 3 I I I I 1. Project description: Development of the site with up to 437 dwellings at various densities and product types, a park, open spaces and roads. The project includes, re-grading of the site, installation of retaining walls and related I improvements. Requested land use entitlements include amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with I related Stage 1 Development Plan. Future land use approvals are anticipated to include a Site Development Review (SDR) permit and a Vesting ITentative Subdivision Map(s). City 2. Lead agency: ty of Dublin Community Development Department I 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 I 3. Contact p ersons: Michael A Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 I4. Project location: Generally located between Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard west of Fallon Road and east of I Lockhart Street. Assessor's Parcel Number 985-0027- 12 5. Project sponsor: Kevin Fryer of Integral Communities 6. General Plan designation: Existing: Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential Park Stream Corridor Open Space Proposed: Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential I Park Stream Corridor Rural residential/Agriculture I 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development I I City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I 8. Other public agency required or potential approvals: • PD (Planned Development) rezoning with Stage 2 rezoning and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Site Development Review (SDR) Permit (City of Dublin) • Vesting Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish and Game, possible); • State Incidental Take Permit(California Department of Fish and Game, possible); • Section 404 Permit including a Section 7 consultation (under the Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (United States Army Corps of Engineers, possible); • Section 401 Clean Water Certification (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, possible); • Notice of Intent (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board); • Issuance of encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Issuance of building and grading permits (City of Dublin); and • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) 1 1 1 City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 I I Environmental Factors Potentially Affected I The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I _ Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Resources Hazards and - Hydrology/Water _ Land Use/ I Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/ I -- - - Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Circulation I -- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance IDetermination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. __I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect on the I environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the I effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. IX I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in I an earlier EIR and ND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and ND, including revisions or mitigation I City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I 1 measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report and the Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B-E Negative Declaration will be prepared. 1 y, �, Date: qv it Signature: Printed Nam : J l For: 4 No L., i 1 1 1 1 1 City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 I I Evaluation of Environmental Impacts I1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the I parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault I rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). I2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and Iconstruction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, I then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. I 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). The checklist will include a response "no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: I a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above I checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier I analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that were "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures I which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. I City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I I6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, I etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 1 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 1 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explana tion of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. I I I I I I I I I I I City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 I 1 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) INote: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No New following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact 1 Impact With Impact Mitigation 1.Aesthetics. Would the project: I a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Source: 1,3,4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including X I but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,3,4) I c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 6) d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Source: 1,4) I 2.Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or I Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use?(Source: 1,2,3) b)Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X I or a Williamson Act contract?(Source: 1,2,3) c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use?(Source: 1,2,3) 3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality Ili ill management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: I a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan?(Source: 1,4) b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute I substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 2,3) I I City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I iPotentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard I (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2,3.5) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations?(Source: 2,3,4) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? (Source: 5) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species X i identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies I or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 2,3,4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X I habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 2,3,4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X I protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including but not limited to marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct 11 removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2,3,4) d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any X native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or I migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2,3,4) e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X I protecting biological resources,such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2,3,4) I I City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation f)Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat I Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, X regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1,3,4) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a)Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X I Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the I significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X I paleontological resource,site or unique geologic feature?(Source: 2,3,5) d)Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of a formal cemetery? (3) 6.Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential I substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 2, I 3) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2,6) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X I liquefaction? (2,3) iv) Landslides? (2,3) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 2,3) Ic) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a II result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2,3) I d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X I (Source: 2,3) 1 City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the I use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater?(Source: 1,2) I 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the I environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials X (Source: 2,3,5) I b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the I release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2,3,5) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous I materials or acutely hazardous materials, X substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2,3,4) I d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 and,as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(Source: 5) e) For a project located within an airport land use X I plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport,would the project result in a safety I hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2,3) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, X I would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2,4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere I with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source: 2,3) I 1 i City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, X including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,5) 8.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?(Source: 2,3 ) X i b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?(2,3) c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?(Source: 2,3) d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or areas,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in I flooding on-or off-site?(Source: 4,5) reate or contribute runoff water which would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 5) f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source: 3,5) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map?(Source: 5) I I City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 I Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area I structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows?(Source: 3,5) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of I loss,injury,and death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (3) Ii) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (5) X 9.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X I (Source: 1,2,3.4) b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over I the project(including but not limited to the X general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or I mitigating an environmental effect?(Source: 1, 2,3,4) c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X I (1,2,3,4) 10.Mineral Resources. Would the project I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state?(Source: 1, 2) I b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X or other land use plan? (Source:1,2) 11.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X a levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?(2,3) I b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels?(Source:2,3) 1 c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,3) I I City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X I ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(2,3) e) For a project located within an airport land use X I plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels?(2, 3) f)For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?(Source: 2,4) 12.Population and Housing. Would the project 2 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other I infrastructure)?(Source: 2,4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere?(4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of X housing elsewhere?(Source: 4) 13.Public Services. Would the proposal: a)Would the project result in substantial adverse I physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services?(Sources: 2,5) Fire protection X I Police protection X Schools X Parks X I Other public facilities X Solid Waste X 1 City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Plil ili j Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 14.Recreation: a)Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated(Source: 2,5) b)Does the project include recreational facilities or X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,5) 15.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)?(3,5) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a X level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for t designated roads or highways? (3,5) c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (3,5) I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses,such as farm X equipment? (5) e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(5) X 1 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?(5) X g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation(such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) III (1,2) I City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 2 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation 16.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project II a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,3) I b) Require or result in the construction of new water X or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which I could cause significant environmental effects? (2,3) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm X I water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?(4,3) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing water entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements I needed? (3) e)Result in a determination by the wastewater X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments?(5) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (5) g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X I regulations related to solid waste? (5) 17.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X I the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below I self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or J endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? I I I City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact I Impact With Impact Mitigation b)Does the project have impacts that are X I individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project I are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable Ifuture projects). c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings,either directly or indirectly? ISources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan I 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR 3 1997 Area B-E Negative Declaration 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider I 5. Site Visit 6. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for Ireview. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this I Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR, the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern I g p Dublin EIR reviewed transition of then vacant lands to urban uses over an approximately 20-30 year time frame. For Subarea 3, the EIR assumed land uses and patterns similar to those shown on the current General Plan and EDSP maps, with the stream corridor and open space through the middle of the site and residential to the Inortheast (MHDR) and west/southwest (MDR). I City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 I I The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to I pP Y this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. This Initial Study also relies on the Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Areas B-E, adopted by the Dublin City Council on November 18, 1997 through Resolution 140-97. The ND assumed a mix of residential and open space uses consistent with the existing General Plan and EDSP designations. I Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND and Iwhich would require additional environmental review. I I I 1 I I 1 I I I City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I 1r a ril iii Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project is set in an a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993. The project site is characterized by two small but distinct hills in the northern and central portions of the site that slope to the south and west. The hills are identified as "Visually Sensitive Hillsides-Restricted Development" in the Eastern Dublin Specific I Plan (see EDSP Figure 6.3). A small watercourse exists in the northwest corner of the site. No dwellings exist on the site. No public parks, scenic vistas or scenic overlooks are located on the site. As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Major light sources adjacent to the site include lights from Fallon Sports Park to the north, lights from the Groves residential complex to the west and lights from the commercial center to the south. IRegulatory framework Dublin General Plan. The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,300 acres of land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and programs I dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development. As noted above, the two hills are classed as "Visually Sensitive Ridgelands-Restricted Development" 1 Previous CEQA documents I Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: I • Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires I City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B)but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C)but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridgetop. • IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the Eastern Dublin flatlands. No mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to stream corridors. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/1) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated the prior EDEIR analysis on aesthetics and visual resources and referenced a visual study prepared for the Area B-E project that identified refinements in project design to help address visual impacts. No additional potentially significant aesthetic impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 1997 ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a,b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including adjacent to a state scenic highway? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/I), development on the project area [i.e. the Eastern Dublin planning area] will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines). Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant impact. This measure requires the City to complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed project would include removing one hill area and relocating the southwestern hill to the south. The southwest facing slope of the retained hill would be planted with native grasses and vegetation to retain an open space appearance.This would screen proposed residential development on the north side of the hill from passersby on the I-580 corridor. The existing stream corridor on the western portion of the site would remain and be preserved as part of the proposed development. All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies contained in the EDSP will apply to this project. No new or more severe impacts with respect to scenic vistas or scenic resources adjacent to a state scenic highway would occur than previously analyzed. No further analysis is required. CDSubstantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project includes the consideration of a development plan on Subarea 3 of the Dublin Ranch. Aesthetic impacts would include disturbance of existing vegetation, grading of building pads and roads and construction of a mix of housing units where none now exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin mitigate this impact The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mrt g p (Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features...").Both the approved and current development plans on the project site would adhere to City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 fokk LI this mitigation measure by preserving on-site natural features (stream corridor and relocated hill). However the asters I . ' • E . 11 see , .t even with I adherence to this miff- tia n alteration of rural and open space on the project si e wou • remain a potentially iznificant im ac . I The proposed project would include :radin: and recontourin: of a •ortion of the site, including one of the visually sensitive Si.e a -as o aci itate development on the project site. The proposed development plan would retain I the south facing slope of the hillside as natural open space as required by the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the impact of visual change in the character or quality of portions of Eastern Dublin and included I mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe impacts have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to this topic and no further analysis is required. Id) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The 1997 ND identified this impact as less than significant. The project site contains minimal light sources and construction I of the proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights along exterior and interior roadways as well as building and security lighting. The project area is in the process of transitioning to urban development. I City of Dublin development requirements will be imposed as part of the normal and customary standard conditions to restrict spillover of unwanted light off of the project site once SDR and tentative map development applications are submitted. No new or more significant impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources g �' Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as a combination of "locally important I farmland" and "other lands," (see EDSP Figure 3.1-B). Although it is likely that the site was historically used for grazing or other agricultural operations no agricultural operations have been observed on the project site during the preparation of this Initial Study. Figure 3.1-C contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that a Williamson Act contract was previously in force on the site,but was non-renewed as of 1993 and has since Iexpired. No other Williamson Act contracted properties exist on the site. No forests or major stands of trees exist on the site. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin 1 City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Iand the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. I This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect I impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also identified as an insignificant impact. I 1997 ND. No additional impacts to agricultural resources were identified in this document. I Project Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No New Impact. No I significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA documents listed above other than the cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. The EDEIR assumed the project site would be I urbanized. No new conditions have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-agricultural use and no new or more severe impacts would result than were analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. The p project ose ro d would continue to contribute to cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1/F). b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. The City of Dublin has zoned the project site for a mix of residential uses, open spaces and a stream corridor. No Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in previous EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with respect to this topic. Ie) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above. I 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Previous EIRs Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 reduced construction dust deposition impacts but not to a level of less than significant. MM 3.11/1.0 requires development projects to implement dust control measures. Even with these measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable • Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment(IM 3.11/B) but not to a less- than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. 1997 ND. No additional air quality impacts or mitigation measures were included in the 1997 ND. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to air quality. Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The amount of development proposed on the site would be less than previously considered and approved by the City of Dublin. Approved uses on the project site includes up to 485 dwellings with a mix of attached and detached dwellings which has been incorporated into the Regional Clean Air Plan. If approved, the proposed project would allow development of up to 437 dwellings with approximately the same mix of attached and detached dwellings and would City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Irepresent a decrease of 47 dwellings. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent a substantial dwelling unit decrease on the I site and would not conflict with or obstruct the regional Clean Air Plan. No new or more significant impacts would result than was previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. No further analysis is required. Ib,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. Air quality impacts of development of the Eastern I Dublin Planning area were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR found that future development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the proposed project, would contribute to the cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, I construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions and would exceed air quality standards. These impact (Impacts (IM/3.11/A, B, C and E) were was found to be significant and unavoidable when I the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved. Since the proposed project is consistent with or lower than the number of dwellings anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR there would be no new or more severe impact with respect to violation of air quality standards than has been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND, and no additional analysis is required. I d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. No New Impact. No schools exist or are planned within or adjacent to the project area, so no impacts would result. Similarly, the site is not I located adjacent to any freeways that would release significant air emissions, and in any case, the number of dwelling would decrease from the past approval. Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses, no objectionable odors would be created. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified mobile source and stationary source emissions as potentially significant cumulative impacts which could not be mitigated to achieve the necessary reduction in source emissions needed to meet the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for these impacts. Reducing the number of dwellings from the previous approval means fewer people will be exposed to pollutant emissions, but the impacts would still be significant. No new or more severe impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the IEastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND. 1 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting I The following analysis is based on a Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the site by the firm of WRA Environmental Consultants dated November 20, 2013. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for I review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. I City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I The project site is an undeveloped area located in an urbanizing portion of the Eastern Dublin. The site contains the following biological communities as identified in the WRA Ireport: • Non-native annual grasslands • Disturbed and developed • Mixed riparian forest • Cattail marsh • Seasonal wetlands • Freshwater marsh I The seasonal wetland, marsh and mixed riparian portions of the site are located in the approximate center of the site. This area also includes re-vegetated habitat that represents mitigation for loss of sensitive habitat elsewhere within the Dublin Ranch Iarea elsewhere in Eastern Dublin. Special-status (protected) plant species identified on the site include areas containing I Congdon's tarplant and San Joaquin spearscale. A number of special-status wildlife species were observed on the Subarea 3 site, I including northern harrier and white-tailed kite. Although not observed on the project in the recent biological assessment, a number of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur on the site, including American badger,burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. A number of trees are found on the site within the mixed riparian forest habitat area. Tree species include valley oak,box elder and willows. ElRegulatory framework California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams,lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other I material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the I California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow I that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support Iaquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Is I Ivegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. I Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as I "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A I summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) I tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. • The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands:to the limit of the wetland. Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man- induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated E, wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. ISection 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may I result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over I the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain I City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants,but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ("Conservation Strategy") Study Area. The Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlinin the environmental permitting process for impacts cts res ultin g from m infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and environmental permitting. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. I • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 Irequires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation I of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream I corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. I • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require I consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri-colored blackbird (IM 3.7/F-I) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for the species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin 1 planning area. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 to 27.0 reduced impacts related to burrowing owl and American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet I around burrowing owl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year. I City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 i I i I I The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures I regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier,black-shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard. I1997 ND. The 1997 ND updated species surveys since the EDEIR but did not identify any additional potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures related to Ibiological resources. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource I mitigation measures adopted through the Eastern Dublin approvals, as applicable to the site. I Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR documents the presence of special-status I plant and wildlife species within the general project area. Numerous mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species to a less-than significant level. These are I listed above and continue to apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have been analyzed in the two previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. The P project ose ro d would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified on the project site. Mitigation measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed development plan (see Exhibit 3) shows that the existing wetlands, marsh areas and other biologically sensitive areas within that have been incorporated into a stream corridor areas that is protected and preserved. The Comprehensive Biological Management Plan shall also address impacts and updates to previous mitigation measures to ensure long-term protection of riparian habitat, wetlands and other waters. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been Ipreviously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. As I assumed in the EDEIR and the 1997 ND, the project continues to provide open space area along and past a designated stream corridor. This ensures that there continues to be an opportunity for wildlife and fish species movement within the I Eastern Dublin context of gradual urbanization over time. Mitigation measures contained in the EDEIR address protections for wildlife and fish species in areas not anticipated for future development. The project would be required to I City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I Iimplement these adopted mitigations, as applicable. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to I potential interference with fish or wildlife movement and no additional analysis is required. I e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect native I oak trees and other trees species on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood,buckeye, or sycamore tree with a main trunk of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at I fifty-two inches above the natural grade;trees required for preservation under an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and trees planted as replacements for unlawfully I removed trees. Permits are required for the removal of any Heritage Tree. Any Heritage Trees that are proposed for removal must be identified in future Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review and Subdivision applications. I Conditions regarding replacement of trees will be considered at that time. Approval of a development plan, zoning permit, site development review, or subdivision map that specifies tree removal will meet the requirements for I Heritage Tree removal permitting. Additionally, a Heritage Tree Protection Plan may be required prior to issuance of permits for grading, or building unless a certified arborist has confirmed that the activities would be outside of the ground area of the drip-line of the trees and the area immediately surrounding the drip- line. I The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan,but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. In any case, the project remains subject to all adopted biological resource mitigations, as applicable. As there is no previous or existing habitat conservation plan for the site, there would therefore be no new or significantly 1 more severe impacts with respect to this topic than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no additional analysis is required. I I I City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting Potentially historic structures. The site is vacant and contains no structures. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project site. Underground cultural resources. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify the presence of archeological or paleontological cultural resources on the project site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less-than- significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits, recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and development of a site-specific protection program for prehistoric sites. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than- significant level. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified historic resources to a less-than-significant level (Impact C3.9/C). These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and development of preservation programs for significant resources. The adopted EDEIR measures largely implemented then-Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix K has since been replaced by CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5, which addresses historic and archeological resources, including human remains; similarly, EDEIR references to Appendix K have been replaced with section 15064.5 in the discussions below. 1997 ND. The 1997 ND did not identify any additional potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures with respect to cultural resources. The proposed project will be required to comply with the applicable EDSP EIR cultural resource mitigation measures. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I IProject Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No I historic resources have been identified in the project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No residences or other structures exist on the site so no historic structures are present. No new or more severe supplemental impacts have therefore been I identified for the proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no additional review is required. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site I grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. None of these pre- I historic sites were identified by the EIR within near the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern I Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6—3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) hi requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and hi determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR through Appendix K/section 15064.5 reduced impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe I significant impacts with respect to human remains are anticipated beyond those previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. I I I City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I Aim MI a 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Geology and soils. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that site soils are largely composed of undifferentiated alluvial deposits (EDSP Exhibit 3.6-C). The EDSP further notes that alluvium soils are characterized by crudely stratified Quaternary stream deposits of sand, silt and clay. Iiii Landslide potential. Portions of the site have moderate to steep slopes. Although some of the hillsides would be re-graded to allow for development, there is a potential for landslide on the site. Seismic hazard. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) (see Exhibit 3.6-B contained in the EDSP EIR). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity, consistent with all of the Bay area. Tsunami and seiche hazards. The risk of damage to future improvements on the site from Ili a tsunami or seiche is low due to the inland location of the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of E earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level. I Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered Ifill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial I alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. I • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation I City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 ii of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope r stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.61J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas. • Measure 3.6 27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term Mitigation Meas / P construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. updated geotechnical investigations for Dublin Ranch since the 1997 ND. The 1997 ND p g EDEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this ND. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable EDSP EIR soil, geologic and seismic mitigation measures. IProject Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced but not to a less-than- significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. A site-specific geotechnical report will be prepared by the applicant as part of future development applications, consistent I City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 i r .0. or with the EDEIR mitigations and as required by the City of Dublin for all residential development projects. The site-specific report will identify ? construction techniques, such as special footings and use of appropriate building iii materials, to ensure that project improvements are consistent with City and State building code requirements related to ground shaking, landslides, ground failure 1:0 and other geologic hazards. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure or landslides are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the site would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities (Impact 3.6/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern 1 Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). The project is required to implement grading an erosion controls through Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the proposed project. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts than have been previously analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required. ! r c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral { ■ spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 and standard City development conditions, the project developer will be will be required to retain a licensed geologist or equivalent to prepare a site-specific soils and geotechnical report for future Stage 2 Development Plan, SDR and tentative map applications. The I report will be required to contain detailed methods to minimize impacts from shrink-swell and/or lateral spreading potential for future site improvements should these conditions be found on the site. EDEIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 will also be implemented to prepare detailed development plans with consideration of hillside conditions so as to avoid landslide potential. With adherence to the Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies, no new or more severe impacts have been identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents;no additional analysis is required.111 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I .. ,r..� we rw iiii sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new or more severe impacts with regard to septic systems. 4 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1 Environmental Setting the issue Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and follow-on CEQA documents, of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse I gasses. The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 1997 ND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and ND have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those I standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is I not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified and the 1997 ND approved. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these actions. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto I Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about I potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of ii 2006. The p g the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the approval of the ND in 1997. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on I this issue is required under CEQA. Project Impacts p a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, ma directly, y have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 1 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials I section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (This sec y prepared by Haley & Aldrich, Inc. in April 2012 ("Report on ASTM Phase I I City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 1 MO all as Environmental Site Assessment,Dublin Ranch Property, Subarea 3,Dublin California.") as This document is incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for ,...1 review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. r Environmental Setting iiii The Phase I analysis prepared by Haley &Aldrich did not identify any recognized environmental conditions on the project site. No recommendations were made in the Phase I report that would result in any remediation on the site. Previous CEQA documents IEastern Dublin EIR. This topic was not directly analyzed in the EIR; however, hazards impacts were identified in Chapter 3.4 (fire and police emergency response, wildfire hazards). 1997 ND. The ND discussed a Phase I site assessment of Areas B-E prepared since the I EDEIR. No problem sites were identified and no significant impacts were expected from use of small quantities of paints, pesticides, and other similar substances typical of urban non-industrial uses. The ND also stated there was no significant risk of explosion I or accidental hazardous substance release. No additional significant impacts or mitigation measures dealing with hazards or hazardous materials were included in this document. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, I use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the site. There would be no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials associated with the proposed development. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the I environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no new or more severe impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials than were analyzed in the 1997 ND and no additional analysis 3I is required. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the I project area. No new or more severe impact would occur with respect to emission or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter of an existing or planned school and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 49 ?; Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I ,c d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. The 1997 ND reported that none of Areas B-E were included on a list of hazardous waste and substance E sites. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of November 14, 2013. There is therefore no new or more severe impacts impact with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport and would therefore requires review by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). A portion of the existing Open Space land use designation lies within the Airport Protection Area and would be redesignated as Rural Residential/Agricultural (RRA) however no residential uses would be permitted consistent with the development limitations for the APA. All other permitted and conditional uses within the proposed RRA land use designation have been reviewed for consistency with the current Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The EDEIR discussed the potential for land use incompatibilities with respect to the airport, but identified the impact as less than significant based on the land uses being consistent with the requirements and policies of the designated areas (Impact 3.1/H). The project proposes the same type and general location of residential and open space uses but continues to limit development in the APA area. Therefore, there would not be a new or more severe impact since ALUC review for development projects was included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and this project has been reviewed by the ALUC and found to be consistent with the current ALUCP;no additional analysis is required. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? N o New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed. structures to a significant risk o loss, injury or death involving h) Expose people and str of 1 y wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project site is located in a partially developed area with residential development existing to the west (The Groves). A City park has been partially constructed to the north (Fallon Sports Park) and a commercial development to the south. Property to the east, on the east side of Fallon Road, is vacant. The project proposes a similar type and scale of development as assumed in the EDEIR and 1997 ND, and is subject to mitigation measures for Impact 3.4/E contained in Eastern Dublin EIR and to the City's Wildfire Management Plan (updated in 2002). No new or more severe significant impacts related to wildland fire hazards are anticipated beyond those in the prior EIR and ND and no additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 9. Hydrology and Water Quality IEnvironmental Setting Local surface water. The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed I which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. A small stream flows in a northwest-southeast direction through the project area. The P jroect area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance Iof regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. Surface water quality.Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San IFrancisco Bay. of a 100- Flooding. The project site lies outside o 100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance y Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06001C0328G). Previous CEOA documents IEastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • N1i g ti ation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM I 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new I flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential. • Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and 52.0 reduced impacts related to non-point I source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community-based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source Ipollution. City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I g I 1997 ND. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures were included in this document. IThe proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation measures. IProject Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. I Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add impervious surfaces to the undeveloped site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to prepare and submit a water quality investigation. The City of Dublin also requires new development proposals to adhere to the most recent surface water quality 0 standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Typical methods of adherence include routing runoff water though vegetated swales or mechanical water cleaning devices, sweeping of parking lots, covering of trash dumpsters and similar actions. The required water quality investigation will be submitted and reviewed as part of the Stage 2 Development Plan and related SDR and tentative map submittals showing detailed project design. Adherence to the existing mitigation measures will ensure that no new or more significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater discharges would result than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. I b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA ,.� documents. Much of the site would remain as rural residential/agriculture that Y would allow recharge of the underground aquifer. Also, stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to an existing off-site stormwater basin located west of the site that would allow recharge into the underground aquifer. Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic I than has been previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. I c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. No grading is proposed along the streambed. New impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to I accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns may be slightly modified based on proposed development, similar to the existing approved Development Plan. However, project stormwater I runoff would flow into existing underground lines previously installed in surrounding streets designed to accept these increased flows (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/15/4). Moreover, adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5/44.0 City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced impacts related to changed drainage patterns and erosion to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are anticipated as part of the project. The proposed development area lies outside of a FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. Proposed drainage patterns would generally follow current patterns (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/15/14). No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the proposed project. These plans must also address the potential for increased water quality impacts. For the proposed Subarea 3 development, sub-regional drainage improvements to serve this project have already been installed (source:Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/8/14). No new or more significant impacts have I been identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed;no additional analysis is required. f) Substantially degrade water quality? Please see items "a" and "e." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, above, the I site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed. I h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above. I j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. No impacts would therefore result. 10. Land Use and Planning iEnvironmental Setting IThe project site is vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures. I City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. The Groves attached residential project has E been constructed to the west. Fallon Sports Park exists north of the site, which is currently proposed for expansion. The Fallon gateway commercial project and undeveloped land exists south of the site. The property east of the site is undeveloped and is vacant. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is located within a distinct area,between Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway west of Fallon Road. The site would either be developed for urban uses or be reserved for agricultural and open space uses. Two small outparcels on the periphery of the Subarea 3 site are not included in this development proposal. Therefore, no existing, established community would be physically divided. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed in prior CEQA documents. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact. Although amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change development areas on the site, the number of dwellings would be somewhat less with the proposed project than has been previously approved (485 previously approved v. 437 proposed). No changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and I permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. There is no existing habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan for the site. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 1997 ND and no additional analysis is required I11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting I The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern Dublin EIR. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I IProject Impacts a,b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. I 12. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Regulatory Setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80 Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 parks Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 -- ISource: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential Idwellings. Previous CEQA documents IEastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from I Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise sources are identified on the project site. I City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I I The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations. 1997 ND. No new or more severe significant noise impacts were identified in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures identified above. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. Development of proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be subject to traffic noise from vehicles using Fallon Road,Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. A recommended condition of SDR and subdivision map approval would require an acoustic specialist to ensure that project features to reduce interior and exterior noise levels on the project site will conform with City noise standards. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures and noise standards in the General Plan, no new or more significant noise impacts have been identified than previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. _: The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact 3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/D, exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable. The project site is not located near Parks RFTA. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents (source: Kevin Fryer, applicant representative, 11/18/13). No new I impacts would result with respect to vibration or groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the project site. City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased levels of permanent noise on the project site that would occur based on project development would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR . No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been Ipreviously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short-term construction noise generated on the project site would be reduced to a less-than- I significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity and to prepare I construction noise management plans. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. Ie, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. Impact 3.10/C in the EDEIR identified I potential noise impacts from the airport as less than significant. Based on Exhibit 3-2 contained in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the Subarea 3 sits lies north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. I The project site would therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. No new or more significant impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project is currently vacant and contains no dwellings or other structures. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New I Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected properties has been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin I General Plan. Approval of the proposed project would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved on the site (485 units currently approved v. 437 proposed.) No new or more severe impacts would occur with Irespect to this topic than were previously analyzed. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No I New Impact. Since the site is currently vacant, no housing units or people would be displaced should be project be approved and implemented. No new or more I City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 severe impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement. 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties on the project site. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up- front costs of capital fire improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I • Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. 1997 ND. No additional public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this document. The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department, as a result of residential development on the project site. The proposed project is required to adhere to mitigation measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0) . Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the project site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not ,•• limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features. Proposed development on the site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 11/18/13) and no new or expanded fire stations would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed project. No additional analysis is required. b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new impact with regard to police protection,based on mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into the proposed project, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Captain Tom McCarthy,Dublin Police Services, 11/20/13). No additional analysis is required. c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. As assumed in the EDEIR, maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities throughout the community, including the Fallon Sports Park, located just north of the project site. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing recreation include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I • Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging areas. 1997 ND. No significant impacts related to recreation were identified in this document. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population on the site. A 2-acre neighborhood park is proposed as part of the project(see Exhibit 3). The project will also pay public facilities, which include a parks component. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts with respect to recreation than were previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? See item "a," above. 4* 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting ri i. Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by arterials Fallon Road, Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard. Regional access is provided by I-580, south of the site. gExisting transit service. Transit service to the project site is provided by the Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) which provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri-Valley. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District(BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just west of Arnold Road. a Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Bicycle lanes exist along Fallon Road, Dublin Boulevard and Central Parkway. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). 1997 ND. No additional potentially significant transportation impacts or mitigation measures were included in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the applicable mitigation measures for transportation and circulation impacts, including payment of traffic PR impact fees applicable to all new development in Eastern Dublin. Ili Project Impacts 1.4 a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project site with residential land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the gm impacts of residential development throughout Eastern Dublin. b The City of Dublin has approved a previous development project on the site that would have contained up to 485 dwellings. Table 3 compares estimated vehicle trips from the proposed Subarea 3 project v. trips that would have been generated from the previously approved development project. Table 3. Comparative Trip Rates-Approved v. Proposed Development(AM,PM al & Daily Trips) Daily Trip AM Peak Hour Trip Rate/Unit PMPeak"Hour Trip:Rate/Unit Land Use Category Rate,', Total In%" , Out=%" Total In% Out% O. MDR(Single-Family- 9.52 0.75 25 72 1.00 63 37 iliii Detached) MHDR(Apartment) 6.65 0.51 20 80 0.62 65 35 Size, Duly AMPeaHour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Approved Uses" D.U. Trip, . Total In . Out. ;Total In Out MDR 313 2,980 235 59 178 313 197 115 MHDR 172 1,144 88 18 70 106 70 37 Existing Project Trips 4,124 323 77 248 267 152 Proposed Uses MDR 330 3,142 248 62 179 330 208 122 MHDR 107 712 55 11 _ 44 66 43 23 Proposed Project Trips 3,845 303 73 223 396 251 145 Net Change in Project Trips I (279) I (19) I (4) I (25) I (24) I (16) I (7) Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Single-family detached housing (#210) and Apartment(#220), 2012. Proposed project uses based on current plan submitted by Mission Valley Homes, Mr. Kevin Fryer, Project applicant, September 2013. City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Based on the above table, the proposed project would generate an estimated 279 fewer total daily trips, 19 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, and 24 fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the current approved development. However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the following roads and transportation facilities: • I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive; • The Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps; • The Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection • Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR. As part of future development project applications, the project applicant will be required to consult with the Dublin Public Works Department to identify the appropriate traffic control device that would need to be installed at the proposed project entrance along the north side of Central Parkway. Overall, the proposed project would generate fewer daily trips, a.m. or p.m. trips than the currently approved project and would not result in any new or more severe impacts with respect to traffic loading on local or regional roads. MTS routes or other routes of regional significance. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes residential uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The current development proposal will be required to comply with current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than previously analyzed;no additional analysis is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Multiple access roads would be provided to serve the site and would provide adequate emergency access to and from the site as required by the California Fire Code. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic. City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 1 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New Impact. No conflicts to plans,policies or programs that promote public transit, pedestrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for this project. The project developer would install sidewalks along all adjacent streets to enhance pedestrian circulation as well as on local, in-tract local streets. No new or more impacts have been identified in this Initial Study that has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site and no additional analysis is required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). fi • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT &T Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-31.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 f f Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR,but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a"will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility has been completed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency and is currently operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/8.0 and 9.0 that require provision of adequate wastewater facilities through expansion of regional ff" wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems. No additional mitigation measures pertaining to utilities or service systems were contained in the 1997 CEQA document. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The current project would contain the same type of development as analyzed in the EDEIR and 1997 Negative Declaration and,based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (noted below) regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No new or more significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is required. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing mains in adjacent roadways would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed in the Subarea 3 development application. According to a representative of DSRSD, District water, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project would not result in City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I a new or more significant impact than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 11/19/13);no additional analysis is required. The proposed project would also contribute to cumulative impacts related to consumption of non-renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4/S, increase in energy use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the operation of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5/T). All of these impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed project would direct stormwater runoff to an existing subregional drainage basin located west of the project site in Eastern Dublin area. This facility has been sized to accommodate peak flows from anticipated development in Eastern Dublin, including the project site so that no new and or upgraded drainage facilities are needed to support proposed development (Jim Templeton, project engineer, 1/8/14). No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with respect to storm drain facilities that have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents; no additional analysis is iiii required. 9. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. The EDEIR planned for iiiii residential uses on the site, with water service provided by DSRSD. Based on the information provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this site and included such development in the District's Urban Water Management Plan (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 11/19/13). Therefore, adequate water supplies are available to serve the project, as assumed in the EDEIR. No new or more significant are anticipated with respect to water supplies iii than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above. ii e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste op Si pick-up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is undeveloped. The topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially significant impact in previous CEQA documents and no new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed. I I City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I I 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop I below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential I impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community, or elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The proposed project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents. ha b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the i+ effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. ii Cumulative impacts of the proposed Sub Area 3 project have been fully analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 1997 ND. ' c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. ii rig iii I iii I I I I I City of Dublin Page 67 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Andy Russell PE, City Engineer Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website DSRSD Stan Kolozdie Applicant Representatives Kevin Fryer References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11 Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts &Todd, 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts &Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore Associates, 1996 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 I ILivermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, ESA Associates, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update iiii id I I I I I I I I City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/Sub Area 3 Project January 2014 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the Dublin Ranch Subarea 3 project, which would result in future development of up to 437 single family residences on an approximately 64 acre site (PLPA 2013-00033). The project proposes General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments to reallocate existing High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land uses, to reduce and change Open Space land uses to Rural Residential/Agriculture and to increase the site's Stream Corridor designation. The application also proposes a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan and a Development Agreement. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the"Project". The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the 1993 land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin, including the Subarea 3 property. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be substantially lessened by implementation of previously adopted mitigation measures with future development of the Project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, or other considerations that support approval of the Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Project. Land Use Impact 3.1F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, 3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts 1"public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts."(emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App.4th 98. (2002) Page 1 of 2 Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/I, 3.3/M. Santa Rita Road/I-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/S. Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer Water and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal, and Operation of Water Distribution System. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.6/B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects. Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Overridina Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Project site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval of the Project and override the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these findings, and in the documents found in the administrative record for the Project. The Project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. The Project will create residential development that is compatible with the residential development in the vicinity of the Project. The Project will help the City toward its RHNA goal for new housing units and will help implement policies contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Project will provide a multi-use trail as well as streetscape improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and landscaping that will be an amenity to the larger community and provide safer pedestrian and bicycle access between existing neighborhoods. The Project will create new revenue for the City, County, and State through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the property and the corresponding increase in value. The Project will contribute funds to construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit City-wide. Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. Page2of2