Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 088-92 WDub GPA/SPRESOLUTION NO. 88 - 92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING'THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND WESTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN; MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE WESTERN DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN Recitals General 1. In response to residential development applications from Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc., and later, the Milestone Land Development Corporation, (the "Applicants") the City of Dublin undertook the Western Dublin Study to plan for the future development of the Western Dublin Expanded Planning Area. Eden Development Group and Schaefer Heights, Inc. own or control the property in the Western Dublin Extended Planning Area with the exception of the approximately twenty-three acre property described in the Draft Specific Plan for Western Dublin as the Morris Property and the approximately 175-acre property described in the Draft Specific Plan as "Cronin Ranch" or the "Milestone Development Corporation" or "Milestone Land Development Corporation" property (hereafter "Milestone Land Development Corporation Property"). 2. The City Council and Planning Commission conducted three joint public study sessions relating to planning issues in western Dublin. The December 13, 1989 study session identified existing site conditions in the study area and described the site's development constraints and opportunities. The February 28, 1991 study session considered different land use options for the study area and chose the Applicants' proposals as the preferred alternative for further study. The November 11, 1991 study session addressed visual and parkland issues in the study area. 3. With the identification of a preferred alternative on February 28, 1991, the City prepared a Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific Plan to plan for the future development of a residential community of single-family and multiple family residences with supporting community and commercial facilities, together with an 18-hole championship golf course and other park and open space facilities. Rural R~identia[-2 mits (Milesty) 1 Revised July 7, 1992 Draft General Plan Amendment 4. The Draft General Plan Amendment, dated December 1991, designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of Western Dublin for residential, commercial, industrial, public, open space and parks and recreation, and other categories of public and private uses of land. 5. The Draft General Plan Amendment includes a statement of standards of population density and standards of building intensity for Western Dublin. 6. Pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan. 7. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment on January 14, 1992 which hearing was continued to March 16, 1992. 8. Based on comments received during the public hearings, related text revisions, dated April 2, 1992, were made to the Draft General Plan Amendment and were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 6, 1992. 9. The Draft General Plan Amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California EnVironmental Quality Act (CEQA) through the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. On April 20, 1992, by Resolution No. 92-023, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 10. On April 20, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-24, recommending City Council adoption of the Draft General Plan Amendment, as revised April 2, 1992. Draft Specific Plan 11. The Draft Specific Plan, dated December, 1991, implements the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment by providing a detailed framework, including policies, standards and implementation programs, for evaluation of development projects proposed in western Dublin. Rural Residential-2 units (Ni Lestone) Revised Jury 7, 1992 12. Pursuant to State Law, the Western Dublin Draft Specific Plan was prepared and reviewed in the same manner as a general plan amendment. 13. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Western Dublin Draft Specific Plan on December 16, 1991, which hearing was continued to January 6, 1992, January 14, 1992, and March 16, 1992. 14. Based on comments received during the public hearings, related text revisions, dated April 2, 1992, and April 6, 1992, were made to the Draft Specific Plan and were reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 6, 1992. 15. The Draft Specific Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) through the preparation and review of a Final Environmental Impact Report. On April 20, 1992, by Res. No. 92-023, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. 16. On April 20, 1992, the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 92-025, recommending City Council adoption of the Draft Western Dublin Specific Plan dated December 1991, as revised April 2, 1992, and April 6, 1992. Council Public Hearing 17. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific Plan on May 12, 1992. 18. On May 28, 1992, at a public meeting, the City Council reviewed the Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of CEQA through the preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Report. 19. A staff report dated May 28, 1992, was prepared for the City Council's consideration of the Western Dublin Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Specific Plan, which report described the amendment and Specific Plan and identified issues related to the amendment and Specific Plan. 20. The City Council considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing held on May 12, 1992, all written testimony submitted prior to the public hearing and the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Rural Resiclentiat-2 tm~its:(Mii~t~) 3 Revised -'uty 7, 21. On May 28, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 59-92, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) as adequate and complete. The Final EIR identified significant adverse environmental impacts which can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through changes or alterations in the project. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, findings adopting the changes or alterations are required and are contained in this resolution. Some of the significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and a statement of overriding considerations is therefore required pursuant to CEQA and is also contained in this resolution. 22. Upon consideration of the land use and environmental effects of the project, the Council accepts the Planning Commission's recommendation as to the Eden/Schaefer Heights/Morris portion of the Planning Area. For the Milestone Land Development Corporation portion of the Planning Area, however, the Council selects the Rural Residential Alternative rather than the Cluster Development Alternative recommended by the Planning Commission. The Rural Residential Alternative provides for two luxury homes served by private wells and septic systems. It takes access from an existing jeep road along Martin Creek. This alternative eliminates virtually all of the mass grading on the site, including the grading of Cronin Ridge and filling of Martin Canyon, and also eliminates destruction of Martin Creek. 23. The Rural Residential Alternative was considered by the Planning Commission at its hearings, in testimony at the public hearings, in staff reports presented to the Commission at its hearings, in the EIR reviewed by the Planning Commission at its hearings and in its deliberations. Evidence of this consideration includes, but is not limited to, the following: a. At the March 30, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the EIR consultant advised the Commission the Rural Residential Alternative (two-unit alternative) would avoid impacts to the Martin Creek area (Minutes, P/C 3/30/92, p.16). b. The Rural Residential Alternative for the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property was specifically described in several Planning Commission staff reports which reports were summarized at applicable hearings and provided the general informational basis for discussion at the hearings. Staff report references to the Rural Residential Alternative on the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property include, but are not limited to, January 29, 1992 Staff Report, p.2,3,7; February 18/March 2, 1992 Staff Report, p.6,7 and pp.23 and 29 of Attachment to Report, consisting of the Minutes of a February 28, 1991 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on the Western Dublin Study Area (see reference to "open space option" with two units, which became the "Rural Residential Alternative" Rura| R~iclentia[-2 mits (Mitesty) 4 Revised Jury 7, in the EIR); March 16, 1992 Staff Report, p.5,6,9; April 6, 1992 Staff Report, p.4. c. The Rural Residential Alternative is described and analyzed throughout the EIR, particularly in Chapter 16 (Unavoidable Significant Impacts) and Chapter 17 (Project Alternatives). On March 2, 1992, the Planning Commission took public testimony on the Draft EIR. (Minutes, Planning Commission 3/2/92, p.42). During the Planning Commission's deliberations after the public hearing was closed, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR chapter by chapter, including Chapters 16 and 17 (Minutes, Planning Commission 4/2/92, p. 62,65). d. The EIR was the subject of three of the Planning Commission's hearings on January 29, 1992, March 2, 1992, and April 2, 1992. All of the information in the EIR was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission in its decisions to recommend certification of the EIR and to recommend approval of the project (Planning Commission Resolutions 92-023, 92-024, 92- 025, April 20, 1992). The Rural Residential Alternative for the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property and its effects on various environmental impacts was described throughout the EIR, particularly in Chapter 17 of the Draft EIR which described and analyzed project alternatives including the Rural Residential Alternative. Findings/Overriding Considerations/ Mitigation Monitoring Program 24. Public Resources Code section 21081 requires the City to make certain findings if the City approves a project for which an environmental impact report has been prepared that identifies significant environmental effects. 25. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires adoption by the City Council of a statement of overriding considerations if the Council approves a project which will result in unavoidable significant effects on the environment. 26. Public Resource Code section 21085 and section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines require the City to make certain determinations if it approves a project which reduces the number of housing units considered in the environmental impact report. 27. The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects. 28. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance by changes or alterations in the project. Rural ResidentiaL-2 units (NiLestone) 5 Revised JuLy 7, 1992 29. Certain of the significant adverse environmental effects cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 30. The Council has selected the Rural Residential Alternative identified in the Final EIR for the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property, reducing the number of housing units for such property from the project as reviewed by the Final EIR for the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. 31. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for changes in a project or conditions imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects in order to ensure compliance during project implementation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT A. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment dated December, 1991, with the Revisions to Draft General Plan Amendment, dated April 2, 1992, as recommended by the Planning Commission, except as to the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property. For the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property the City Council does hereby adopt the Rural Residential Alternative identified in the Final EIR. With this action, the City Council substantially modifies the Draft General Plan Amendment for the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property by adopting the Rural Residential Alternative, rather than the Cluster Development Alternative recommended by the Planning Commission. This modification was not referred back to the Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65356 because the Rural Residential Alternative had been previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearings. B. The Dublin City Council finds the Western Dublin Specific Plan consistent with the Dublin General Plan, as revised by the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment. C. The Dublin City Council does hereby approve the Western Dublin Specific Plan dated December, 1991, with the Revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated April 2, 1992, and additional revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated April 6, 1992, as recommended by the Planning Commission, except as to the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property. For the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property, the City Council does hereby adopt the Rural Residential Alternative identified in the Final EIR. With this action, the City Council substantially modifies the Draft Specific Plan for the Milestone Land Development Corporation Property by adopting the Rural Residential Alternative rather than the Cluster Development Alternative recommended by the Planning Commission. This Rural ResidentiaL-2 units (NiLestone) 6 Revised JuLy 7, 1992 modification was not referred back to the Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65356 because the Rural Residential Alternative had been previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearings. D. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the up-to-date Dublin General Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. E. The Dublin City Council does hereby direct the Staff to edit, format, and print the Western Dublin Specific Plan with all City Council approved revisions and without any other substantive changes. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby make the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, for the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council finds and declares that the rationale for each of the findings set forth in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of its findings (Exhibit A) is contained in the paragraph entitled "Rationale for Finding" in Exhibit A. The Council further finds that the mitigation measures for each identified impact in Exhibit A make changes to, or alterations to, the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, or are measures incorporated in the Western Dublin Specific Plan that, once implemented as described inthe Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit B hereto), will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto, which statement shall be included in the record of the project approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program: Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment" attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 for the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct that the Applicants shall pay all costs associated with the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Rural ResidentiaL-2 ta~its (MiLestone) 7 Revised JuLy 7, 1992 BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination for the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project with the Alameda County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council does hereby direct the City Clerk to make available to the public, within one working day of the date of adoption of this resolution, copies of this resolution (including all Exhibits) and the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment, dated December, 1991, within the Revisions to Draft General Plan Amendment, dated April 2, 1992, and the Western Dublin Specific Plan, dated December, 1991, with the Revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated April 2, 1992, and additional revisions to Draft Specific Plan, dated April 6, 1992, all as modified by this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this resolution shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of July, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Burton, Howard, Jeffery, Moffatt and Mayor Snyder None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: No~e No~e Mayor ATTEST: 114\Reso [ \28\ reso [. 2 Rural Residentia[-2 units (Ni Lestone) 8 Revised July 7, 1992 Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations [Rural Residential Altemative version] Environmental Impact Report for Westem Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment prepared by WPM Planning Team, Inc. for the City of Dublin July 5, 1992 Table of Contents Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts Findings Concerning Altematives Findings Conceming Growth-inducing Impacts Findings Concerning Insignificant Impacts Miscellaneous Findings Statement of Overriding Considerations Pages with Revisions The following pages have been revised since the June 8, 1992 version of the findings. Revisions prior to June 8, 1992 are indicated in italics. Revisions after June 8, 1992 are indicated in bold italics. 2 Section 1: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts AGRICULTURAL USE ON ADJOINING LAND IMPAft: Agricultural use on adjoining lands could be adversely affected by proposed development. Pets owned by project residents could harass or injure livestock. Residential use close to the adjoining lands could result in livestock gates left open, or in damage to fences or to other livestock control structures. Project residents, in ram, might be affected by flies and odors nonally attendant to grazing operations. FEIR pages 3-25 and 3-26. Mitigation Measures: Provide project residents with disclosure statements addressing protection measures for livestock, and also addressing the presence of agricultural nuisances. Protect agriculmral operations by enforcing leash ordinances and including dog owner liability for livestock damage; provide fencing in grazing areas. FEIR page 3-27. Finding. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. RationMe for Finding: Enforcement of leash ordinances and imposing dog-owner liability for damage to livestock wig provide the necessary incentives for pet owners to keep their pets from interfering with livestoclc Providing project residents with disclosure statements and information regarding agricultural nuisances will inform project residents that they are near livestock, and that they should take necessary precautions to minimize the aforementioned impact. OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF PROJEff OPEN SPACE IMPACT: The project contains large amounts of open space, some private and some public, and with several possible public or private owners or managers. In order for the benefits of the open space to be realized, and to better address typical open space related issues, the ownership, management and maintenance of the different kinds of open space must be coordinated throughout the project. FEIR page 3-29. Mitigation Measure: To provide the necessary coordination, an open space management plan shall be prepared to identify the entities who will own and manage the project's open space. Management and maintenance responsibilities shall be specified and shall be specifically correlated with design-level characteristics of the project. FEIR page 3-29, 3- 30. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for FindinIl: The Open Space Management Plan will provide the necessary coordination between the various owners of private and public open space by setting out 2:\WP50~914B.H 3 the improvements contemplated for each area, phasing of the improvements, and management and maintenance for each area. REGIONAL TRAIL CORRIDOR IMPACT: A regional trail through and staging area on the site could result in conflicts with adjacent land uses. FEIR pages 3-31, 3-32. Mitigation Measures: Implement the provisions of the Specific Plan regarding the regional trail including Specific Plan Action Program 7.7A requiring dedication of the trail corridor and staging area and construction of related improvements according to EBRPD standards. Prepare a design-level trail corridor plan as part of the Open Space Management Plan and including provisions for the ownership, design, operation, and management of the trail, staging area, other local trail access points, and provision for connection to trails in the San Ramon Westside Area. Preparation and review of the corridor plan will allow potential conflicts with adjacent land uses to be exposed and resolved through design, operation and other management features. FEIR page 3-32. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Preparation and review of the corridor plan will allow potential conflicts with adjacent land uses to be exposed and resolved through design, operation and other management f eatures. DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION IMPACT: The extension of Dublin Boulevard will provide a link between western and central Dublin, along the north side of 1-580. Turn movements from this street to multiple driveways serving proposed commercial uses could be a safety hazard. FEIR page 4-6. Mitigation Measures: Control turn movements from Dublin Boulevard by limiting design speedS, by spacing and limiting left mm opportunities, and by providing left turn lanes on Hollis Canyon Boulevard. FEIR page 4-7. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or'substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Controlling speed and limiting turn movements from Dublin Boulevard will avoid or substantially lessen this safety hazarat SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPACT: Full buildout of the project would result in congestion on area sweets and intersections if this interchange is not built. FEIR page 4-7. 2:XWP50N8914B.FI 4 Mitigation Measures: Construct the Schaefer Ranch Road interchange; or conduct supplementary traffic studies at each 10% increment of project buildout, evaluating project and area traffic effects, identifying a phased development limit for maximum acceptable development without the interchange, and identifying project delay or revision plans if the phased development limit is reached without completion of the interchange. FEIR pages 4-8, 4-9. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The impact will be avoided by construction of the interchange. If the interchange is not built, the required supplementary traffic studies will identify a phased development limit for maximum acceptable development to ensure that project traffic does not outpace the interchange's existing capacity. EDEN CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPAft: Without improvements, offramps at the 1-580 interchange would operate at an unacceptable LOS F with buildout of Western Dublin. FEIR page 4-9. Mitigation Measures: Provide improvements for the Eden Canyon Road interchange, such as lane widening, offramp intersection signals, additional offramp lanes or restriping. FEIR pages 4-9, 4-10. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: As required by the mitigation measure, the improvements for the Eden Canyon Road interchange will be installed; and as the EIR traffic study and Appendix D conclude, the impact will be avoided or substantially lessened. BRITTANY DRIVE EXTENSION IMPACT: Brittany Drive is proposed for extension to the Cronin projectJ With this extension, traffic speeds on Brittany Drive are likely to increase. This could lead to conflicts between speeding vehicles and pedestrians. FEIR page 4-10. Mitigation Measure: The identified mitigation measure is not required because the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for the Cronin property which reduces ~ The terms "Cronin Ranch'; "Cronin property," or "Cronin project" are used throughout the FEIR and these findings. The term "Milestone Land Development Corporation" is used in the main text of the resolution approving the Western Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. All of these terms refer to the portion of the Planning Area owned by the Milestone Land Development Corporation. FEIR page 1-4. 2:\WP50~8914B.FI 5 development from 125 to 2 units, eliminates the Brittany Drive extension and provides access along Martin Canyon Road. FEIR page 4-11, 17-4. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. SHELL RIDGE ROAD IMPACT: Shell Ridge Road is proposed along steep terrain with sharp curves, presenting potential safety hazards re: limited sight distance, straight alignment, and homes fronting on the street. FEIR pages 4-11, 4-12. Mitigation Measure: To avoid these safety hazards, no direct access shall be allowed to Shell Ridge Road. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finch'ng: Elimination of th'rect access to Shell Ridge Road will reduce the potential for conflicts between through traffic and driveway use, and will lessen its hazards. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROAD IMPACT: An emergency vehicle access route to connect the western and eastern parts of the Planning Area is needed to provide emergency vehicle access, emergency evacuation, a maintenance mad for proposed utility lines, and a pedestrian trail connection to the regional trail. FEIR pages 4-12, 4-13. Mitigation Measure: Provide an emergency vehicle access route between the Eden Canyon Country Club and Cronin Ranch, which route minimizes grading and visual impact, and provides a trail connection to the regional trail. FEIR page 4-13. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The road will be built, and through design features, the grading and visual impacts will be mitigateeL ROWELL RANCH RODEO PARK AREA IMPACT: The current rural setting of the Rodeo Park and an existing house in Schaefer Basin would be modified to a permanent, direct view of commercial and residential development and graded slopes. FEIR pages 5-6, 5-7. Mitigation Measures: Use benns, setbacks, and other design measures to conceal structures from the Rodeo Park. Use design measures to avoid silhouetting structures on 2:\WP50X89 14B.H 6 , the skyline. Detailed grading plans shall emphasize natural land contours, which provide horizontal and vertical variation of slopes and a smooth transition to natural terrain. The master landscape plan shall emphasize planting along visible disturbed slopes and ridgelines, planting to ease the transition between developed and open space areas, and to soften the visual effect of structures and reduce glare impacts. FEIR pages 5-7, 5-8, 5-17, 5-18. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid o/: substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Berms, setbacks, the master landscape plan, other design measures and detailed grading plans, which will emphasize natural land contours, will minimize the visual impacts associated with construction of commercial and residential uses and graded slopes. INTERSTATE 580 - VIEW OF DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION IMPAft: Construction of the Dublin Boulevard Extension involving tree removal and extensive landform alteration would be highly visible from the 1-580 freeway. FEIR pages 5-8, 5-9. Mitigation Measures: Align this street and plan grading to reduce grading and tree removal. Include special attention to tree replacement for this area in the landscape- revegetation plans to soften graded slopes and have as many or more trees visible from 1- 580 after the project compared to before the project. FEIR page 5-9. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Findinl~: The landscape-revegetation plans will specify that exposed slopes must be softened and graded and required tree replacement will minimize landform alteration and tree removal impacts. VIEW OF CRONIN RANCH FROM CENTRAL DUBLIN AND DUBLIN HILLS IMPACT: Proposed development would be located on the upper slopes of Cronin Ridge above 740foot elevation which is visible from various parts of Dublin. FEIR pages 5-10, 5-11. Mitigation Measures: The City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for the Cronin Ranch. This alternative reduces the number of permitted homesites from 125 to 2 and permits certain low-intensity uses, such as a small scale horse boarding operation subject to a conditional use permit. Access wouH be provided along existing Martin Canyon Road. This alternative minimizes site development thereby minimizing site alteration, including grading and tree removal, and thereby also minimizing the visual effects of the Cronin development from Central Dublin and the Dublin Hills. Because the Rural ResidentialAlternative for Cronin Ranch does not, however, require the minimally permitted development to be below 740foot elevation, this alternative done is 2:\WP50X8914B.FI 7 not sufficient to mittkate the significant visual impact identUied in the FEIR to a level of insignificance. In addition to adoption of the Rural Residential Alternative, the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR are also adopted, and will reduce the visual impacts to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures include the requirement for a detailed grach'ng plan pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8.2B, which plan emphasizes grading related to natural contours with horizontal and vertical slope variation, rounded cut and fill slopes which provide smooth transition to natural terrain and special consideration of visual concerns and protection of existing trees to remain. A master landscape plan shall be prepared pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9.7A, which plan emphasizes special landscape treatment for visually sensitive areas, particularly disturbed slopes and ridgelines, for smooth visual transition between developed areas and natural open space, and for planting to soften the visual effects of structures. Additional mitigations prohibit development above 740foot elevation unless a specific exception is granted based on detailed visual analysis and compliance with the standards identified in the FEIR. Grading shall minimize land disturbance and tree removal, and trees to be removed shall be replaced in strategic locations to reduce visual impacts of development. FEIR pages 5-11, 5-12, 17-4, 17-5. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Detailed grading plans will emphasize natural land contours, the master landscape plan will emphasize planting along any visible disturbed slopes to limit visual impacts. Prohibiting development above 740' elevation unless an exception is granted based on detailed visual analysis will eliminate visual impacts related to development most likely to be visible from central Dublin. VIEWS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FROM PALOMARES HILLS AND SUNNY HEIGHTS IMPACT: Development on Oak Ridge would be visible from portions of these two areas of existing and ongoing development located just west of the Planning Area. FEIR page 5-12. Mitigation Measures: Detailed grading plans pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8.2B shall emphasize natural land contours which provide variation of slopes and a smooth transition between development and natural terrain. The master landscape plan required pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9.7A shall emphasize planting along visible disturbed slopes and ridgelands, planting to ease the transition between developed and open space areas, and planting to soften the visual effects of structures. Protect significant tree areas on the northwest face of Oak Ridge by adjusting the Site Plan and Grading Plan to preserve these tree areas in open space. FEIR pages 5-12, 5-13, 5-17, 5- 18. 2:\WP50X8914B.H 8 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding,: Detailed grading plans will emphasize natural land contours, the master landscape plan will emphasize planting along visible disturbed slopes, and protection of significant tree areas will lima these visual impacts. VIEWS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FROM EDEN CANYON AREA IMPACT: A number of rural residences are located in Eden Canyon. Proposed development would be visible generally and on the skyline from these residences. FEIR page 5-13. Mitigation Measures. Detailed grading plans required pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8.2B shall emphasize natural land contours which provide horizontal and vertical variation of slopes and a smooth transition to natural terrain. The master landscape plan required pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9.7A shall emphasize planting along visible disturbed slopes and ridgelands to ease the transition between developed and open space areas, and to soften the visual effects of structures. Plan development on Oak Ridge and North Ridge to minimize adverse visual effects. Include setbacks, berms, protection of trees, and additional plantings with special attention to avoiding silhouetting on the skyline. FEIR pages 5-13, 5-14, 5-17, 5-18. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Detailed grading plans, the master landscape plan, and the site plan for Eden Canyon will emphasize minimal vegetation removal and other techniques to minimize visual impacts. EDEN CANYON ALTERATION IMPACT: Eden Canyon presently has very high visual quality. The existing Eden Canyon Road winds through a rural setting of dense woodland and widely-spaced homes. An access street, proposed as an integral part of the project, would need to traverse a winding section of Eden Canyon. Construction of this street would alter the visual character of the canyon. Eden Canyon residents and visitors must pass through this section of the canyon to reach their homes. The alteration of the canyon would be long-term in nature. The proposed four-lane road in the lower canyon would have a fundamentally different visual quality that the existing road; a narrow, winding country road would be replaced by an arterial drive. FEIR page 5-14. Mitigation Measures: Detailed grading plans required pursuant to Specific Plan action Program 8.2B and the master landscape plan required pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9.7A shall emphasize grading techniques and planting to ease transitions between developed and open space areas. The site plan for Eden Canyon shall realign the roadway for minimum canyon disturbance and shall provide large lot homesites to minimize grading and vegetation removal along Eden Creek. Grading plans shall further consider ways to reduce or avoid canyon fill, for example, by use of overflow channels 2:\WP50x8914B.FI 9 and retaining walls. The master landscape plan shall further provide for dense replanting in disturbed canyon areas. These mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. The proposed sweet inherently requires major grading, and no other feasible route exists. FEIR pages 5-15, 5-17, 5-18. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. Rationde for Findin11: Various grading techniques and dense replanting in disturbed canyon areas will minimize these visual impacts. However, these measures cannot fully mitigate the impacts due to the major grading required to construct Eden Canyon Roa~ EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROUTE OVER RIDGELINE IMPACT: Grading and paving of portions of an emergency vehicle access over Skyline Ridge would be visible from Central Dublin. FEIR page 5-15. Mitigation Measures. Detailed grading plans required pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program &2B and the master landscape plan required pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9.7A shall emphasize grading techniques and planting to follow natural contours and soften disturbed slopes and ridgelines where visible from Central Dublin. Minimize visual impact with plan alignment that minimizes gra. d. ing. Design and build the road to the minimum acceptable width with a surface treatment which blends with the hillside setting. FEIR 5-16. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Specific grading boundaries will limit areas of grading, and implementation of the detailed grading plan and natural landscape plan will emphasize techniques to ease transitions, and the planting of extensive vegetation will limit these impacts. LANDFORM ALTERATION - EDEN CANYON COUNTRY CLUB IMPACT: Mass grading and extensive landform alteration are proposed. About 35 to 37 million cubic yards of earth would be moved. The upper sections of several secondary ridges would be removed, and ridgeline elevation would be lowered in some cases by 100 feet or more. Earth removed from ridgelines would be placed in various canyons. Canyons would be filled to a depth of 100 feet or more in some locations. Some smaller landforms would disappear entirely. FEIR pages 5-17. Mitigation Measures: Provide a detailed grading plan pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8.2B and master landscape plan pursuant to Specifw Plan Action Program 9.7A to minimize visual impacts by emphasizing grading techniques to follow natural 2:\WPSOX8914B.H 10 contours where possible, by planting and grading to ease transitions between developed and open space areas particularly along slopes and ridgelines. Strict "limits of grading" boundaries shall be established for the project and specifically identified grading techniques and treatments shall be included where necessary, for example, in the Schaefer Basin Area, along the Dublin Boulevard extension, along Oak Ridge and North Ridge and throughout Eden Canyon. These measures would reduce the severity of grading throughout the project area, but would not reduce this impact to an insignificant level. Mass grading is inherent in a project of this size on a steeply-sloping site. FEIR pages 5- 1'7 through 5-19. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. Rationale For Finding: The detailed grading plan and master landscape plan will be designed to minimize visual impacts through grading techniques, and the imposed limits of grading boundaries will insure that sensitive areas are not graded. However, due to · the scale of grading and land form alteration, even with these mitigation measures, the ,impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. LANDFORM ALTERATION - CRONIN RANCH IMPACT: Mass grading and major landform alteration is proposed for the project. Cronin Ridge would be graded, with the earth used to fill Martin Canyon. FEIR page 5-19. Mitigation Measures: The identified mitigation measures for Landform Alteration on Cronin Ranch are not required because the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for the Cronin property. This alternative reduces the number of homes from 125 to 2, eliminates the mass gradings and the landform major alterations that would have been necessary to remove portions of Cronin Ridge and fill Martin Canyon. With the very low intensity of allowable development, only minor site alteration will be required. The associated reduction in traffic eliminates the need for significant street construction and related landslide repair. FEIR pages 5-19, 16-2, 17-4 through 17-6. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The detailed grading plan and master landscape plan will be designed to minimize visual impacts through grading techniques, and the imposed limits of grading boundaries will insure that sensitive areas are not graded. However, due to the scale of grading and land form alteration, even with these mitigation measures, the impact cannot be reduced to a level of insigniJicance. 2:\WPS0~914B.FI l l LANDMARKS IMPACTS: Development could affect several natural features in the Planning Area with high scenic value, including Blackbird Pond, Los Novlos Rock Formation, the Marshall Cliffs, and Donlan Point. FEIR page 5-20. MitiEation Measures: Specific Plan Action Programs 8.6C, 8.3B and additional mitigations require development plans to protect the visual qualities of these landmarks by preserving and enhancing Blackbird Pond, by preserving Doulan Point and carefully planning its wail viewpoint to minimize grading, and by minimizing grading in and around the Marshal/Cliffs and Los Novlos Rock Formation. FEIR page 5-21. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinlr: Blackbird Pond will be preserved and enhanced, Donlan Point will be preserved and the minimization of grading will avoid or substantially lessen the significant impact. PROPOSED ELDERBERRY CANYON BRIDGE IMPACT: With a possible height of 80 feet and a span of several hundred feet, the proposed bridge over Elderberry Canyon could affect views for future residents of the Planning Area. FEIR page 5-21. Mitigation Measure: Provide additional design-level evaluation of the bridge focusing on visual features as well as engineering. FEIR page 5-22. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Through the design process, the bridge's visual impacts will be evaluated and the design will be modified, if needed, to minimize visual impacts. MORRIS RESIDENCE IMPACT: The proposed project would require extensive grading near this residence. Proposed f'~l banks would extend within about 200 feet of this existing residence. There would be a major change in landscape character for the surrounding ranchland. FEIR page 5-22. MitiEation Measures: Use detailed grading plans required under Specific Plan Action Program &2B and the master landscape plan required under Specific Plan Action Program 9.7A to emphasize grading which follows natural contours and planting which will ease the transition between developed and open space areas near the Morris residence. Minimize Fading near the residence and provide fast growing trees for screening. FEIR page 5-22. 2:\WP50x8914B.FI 12 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. Rationale for Finding: Grading will be minimized and the planting of fast growing trees for screening will be used to obscure the grading from the Morris Residence. However, due to the proximity of the grading to the Morris Residence and the volume of grading, even with these mitigation measures, the impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. REGIONAL TRAIL - VISUAL CONCERNS IMPAft: The proposed regional trail requires careful design and location planning to preserve its visual value for trail users and area residents. FEIR page 5-23. Mitigation Measures: As part of Specific Plan Action Program 4.4A, align the trail to minimize windy conditions and to provide a minimum buffer between the trail and development. Adjust trail alignment, street crossings and connections near 1-580 for direct and convenient location while avoiding urban development wherever possible. FEIR page 5-23. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The proposed regional trail will be designed to minimize visual disruption and will be aligned to avoid urban development whenever possible, thereby avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effect. WATER STORAGE TANKS AND PUMP STATIONS - VISUAL CONCERNS IMPACT: Without careful siting and design treatment, proposed tanks and pump stations located in the upper elevations of the project site, could have adverse visual effects both on-site and off- site. FEIR pages 5-23, 5-24. Mitigation Measures: Supplementary environmental review shall be required for design level storage tank and pump station plans. These plans shall include information on tank size, siting, and design treatment. Locate tanks below specified elevations. Use burial, berming landscaping and/or neutral paint color to conceal tanks. Locate and screen pump stations to be unobtrusive. Preparation and review of the storage tank and pump station plans allows the opportunity to identify and resolve visual siting and design effects of specific facility proposals. FEIR pages 5-24, 5-25. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 2:\WP50~914B.FI 13 Rationde for Finth'n~,: Supplementary environmental review, which will include analyzing the visual impacts associated with construction of the tanks and pumps, will insure that design of these facilities will include consideration of visual impacts. LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACT: City parks, a fire station, an elementary school, the golf course, the Village Center and Neighborhood Center, and other public and private facilities could have night lighting which would affect nearby residents. FEIR pages 5-25, 5-26. Mitigation Measures: Design public andprivate facility lighting to minimize impact on nearby residential areas. In addition, a Lighting Plan shall be prepared for the Village Center pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 9.4A to provide pedestrian scale fixtures, avoid harsh lighting colors, and control lighting of signs. A Lighting Plan shall also be prepared to restn'ct lighting and signage in the Neighborhood Center to minimize adverse visual effects on residents. FEIR pages 5-25, 5-26. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Findinlr: Lighting design requirements will provide specific design features to minimize light and glare; potential impacts associated with Village and Neighborhood Center uses will be minimized by design standards and scale and intensities of lighting reflected in the Village and Neighborhood Center Lighting Plans. TRANSMISSION LINE CLEARANCE IMPACT: Proposed fill in Wagon Wheel Canyon and near the golf course would decrease the distance between existing transmission lines and proposed development increasing the safety hazard of the lines. FEIR page 5-28. Mitigation Measure: Verify that there is adequate clearance between the proposed project and the transmission lines. Encourage additional clearance wherever possible and plan tree placement to avoid violation of CPUC and PG&E clearance standards near the lines. FEIR page 5-29. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finch'n~,: Insuring that there is adequate clearance between development and transmission lines and planting of trees near power lines will discourage contact with the lines. 2:\WP50~8914B.FI 14 GRASSLAND IMPACT: Approximately one-third of the Planning Area grassland resources would be converted to urban development and would be permanently lost as a wildlife and habitat resource. Night lighting could reduce the habitat value of remaining grasslands. FEIR page 6-6. Mitigation Measures: The Environmental Management Plan required in Specific Plan Action Program 8.3B shall include provisions to revegetate disturbed areas. It shall also provide for grassland buffer next to preserved woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland with variable buffer widths as needed for specific habitat requirements. Control night lighting in buffer areas, and control or discontinue grazing in the retained grasslands to enhance productivity for wildlife. FEIR p. 6-6. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding,: Requiring revegetation, provision of grassland buffers, and the discontinuance or controlling of grazing in retained grasslands will conserve existing grassland and expand grassland in other areas to minimize the loss of grassland due to project development NORTHERN COASTAL SCRUB IMPACT: About two-fifths of all northern coastal scrub on the Cronin property would be destroyed by proposed development. Night lighting could reduce the habitat value of remaining northern coastal scrub. FEIR page 6-7. Mitigation Measures: The Environmental Management Plan required in Specific Plan Action Program 8.3B shall include provisions to minimize removal of northern coastal scrub, provide replacement of lost vegetation on a 3:1 basis, establish grassland borders to protect the scrub resource and provide connecting wildlife corridors, and control night lighting. FEIR page 6-7, 6-7a, 6-8. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Requiring that removal of the northern coastal scrub be minimized, as well as requiring revegetation of lost scrub and protection of the resource through grassland buffers will conserve existing scrub and expand this resource in other areas to minimize its loss due to Project development. COAST LIVE OAK WOODLAND IMPACT: Proposed development would destroy about 126 acres of oak woodland and its related habitat value. Within these woodland stands are many large native trees. A number of specimens are several hundred years of age. Many additional trees may also be killed due to soil compaction 2:x,WP5(~g914B.H 15 and irrigation practices. Night lighting could reduce the habitat value of the remaining oak wood land. FEIR pages 6-7, 6-7a. Mitigation Measures: With respect to the Eden/Schaefer Heights portion of the Planning Area, complete a detailed tree survey and apply tree protection measures for trees to remain pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8.3A. Based on the survey, make adjustments to the development plan to protect additional trees, especially along Phillips Ridge, Oak Ridge, Shell Ridge, and in Powerline Canyon. The Environmental Management Plan required under Specific. Plan Action Program 8.3B shall include standards to protect retained woodland, replacement of removed trees at a 3:1 ratio and shall minimize night lighting. With respect to the Cronin property, the identified mittRation measures are not required because the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for the Cronin property. This alternative reduces the number of units from 125 to 2 and eliminates most of the grading that would have been required along Cronin Ridge for homesites and access, thereby also eliminating the associated oak woodland removal. FEIR pages 6-7 through 6-10, 16-3, 17-4. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. With respect to Cronin Ridge, the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative which reduces the number of units and the mass grading for homesites and access. Adoption of this alternative reduces the oak woodland impacts on Cronin Ridge to a level of insignificance. With respect to the other oak woodland impact areas identified in the FEIR, the changes or alterations required in or incorporated into the project would not avoid or substantially lessen this impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. Rationale of Findinlt: The tree survey will protect removal of trees by requiring adjustments to the development plans to minimize tree removal. The Environmental Management Plan's provision of standards to protect retained woodand, and require a replacement of three trees for each one removed, will further lessen these impacts. However, due to the scale of destruction of oak woodland, this impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. RIPARIAN WOODLAND/STREAM CORRIDORS IMPACT: Major sections of riparian woodland and stream corridors would be destroyed on the Eden and Cronin properties. Night lighting could reduce the habitat value of the remaining fiparian corridors and fiparian woodland. FEIR page 6-10. Mitigation Measures: With respect to the Eden portion of the Planning Area, the Environmental Management Plan required under Specific Plan Action Program 8.3B shall include provisions to modify development plans to protect riparian woodland, establish riparian buffer zones in consultation with the Army Corps and Fish and Game, as 2:\WPS0X8914B.FI 16 applicable, and minimize night lighting. Plan development in riparian woodland areas, especially in Upper Eden Canyon and Central Hollis Canyon to reduce and minimize areas of alteration and related grading. Disturbed streams shall be reconstructed according to the standards in the FEIR with reconstruction plans designed by an interdisciplinary team of a biologist, engineer and landscape architect With respect to the Cronin property, the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative which eliminates the grading and destruction of 1,500 feet of the Martin Creek riparian corridor. FEIR pages 6-10a to 6-13, 16-3, 17-4. Finding: With respect to the Cronin property, the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative which eliminates destruction of the Martin Creek riparian corridor and reduces this impact to.a level of insignificance. With respect to the other riparian woodland/stream corridor impact areas identified in the FEIR, the changes or alterations required in or incorporated into the project do not avoid or substantially lessen this impact~ A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. Rationale for Finding,: The Environmental Management Plan will require development plans to be modified to protect riparian woodland and minimize night lighting, which can reduce the habitat value of these areas. Any disturbed streams will be reconstructed based upon the input of experts to minimize the impacts. However, due to the large ~ section of woodland and stream corridors that will be destroyed by the project, the ., impact cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance. AQUATIC BIOMES IMPACT: Blackbird Pond, several stock ponds, and intermittent streams would be directly or indirectly affected by proposed development through destruction of creek beds, canyon f'~l, siltation, and possibly, more intense use by cattle. Night lighting could reduce the habitat value of Blackbird Pond. FEIR page 6-13 Mitigation Measures: To reduce the effects of development on aquatic resources, the Environmental Management Plan required in Specific Plan Action Program 8.3B shall include an enhancement program for Blackbird Pond which program emphasizes the riparian nature of this habitat resource, while minimizing safety hazards to children and minimizing night lighting. The Environmental Management Plan shall include relocation of stock ponds and other aquatic habitat in consultation with a biologist and in accord with Army Corps and Fish and Game "no net loss" policies. The Plan shall also include water supply and management provisions for new ponds as well as five-year monitoring by a qualified biologist. FEIR pages 6-13, 6-13a, 6-14. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding,: The Environmental Management Plan will require the enhancement of Blackbird Pond to protect and expand its aquatic biomes, and shall 2:\WP50\8914B.FI 17 include relocation of stock ponds to minimize loss of biomes. The "no net loss"policies that will be enforced will ensure that the quantity of aquatic biomes remains constant. WILDLIFE CORRIDORS IMPAft: The development plan isolates several key wildlife habitats and provides no effective access corridors between certain habitat areas. FEIR page 6-14. MitiEation Measures: The Environmental Management Han required under Specific Plan Action Program 8.3B shall incorporate additional wildlife corridors into project plans and shall provide planted, naturally landscaped wildlife passageways where roadways pass through wildlife corridors. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid orsubstantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finch'n~: By incorporating wiMlife corridors into project plans, wildlife habitats will not become isolated because wildlife will be able to migrate through these corridors as necessary. INTRODUCTION OF DOMESTIC AND EXOTIC PLANTS, ANIMALS AND HERBICIDES IMPACT: Introduced plants could compete with native vegetation. Domestic animals could pose problems for wildlife. Drifting herbicide sprays could affect native plants. FEIR page 6-15. Mitigation Measures: To reduce plant competition, control use of new plants with an emphasis on native plants. To further protect plant and wildlife resources, enforce existing leash laws and establish stringent herbicide use rules, reporting procedures and f'mes for observed violations. FEIR page 6-15. FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinz: Through controlling the introduction of new plants, there will be a reduction in plant competition, which will protect native vegetation. Native vegetation also will be protected through the establishment of stringent herbicide use rules, reporting procedures and fines. ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND LISTED SPECIES IMPAft: Although an investigation has found that the Alameda whipsnake is not found on the Eden Development Group property, there is a possibility that this threatened species could occur on the Cronin property. FEIR page 6-16. Mitigation Measure: Conduct a supplementary investigation of the Alameda whipsnake on the Cronin property, subject to survey performance standards in the FEIR. If the 2:\WP5{},8914B.FI 18 species is found, redesign the project per survey recommendations and submit the revised project to the City for processing. FEIR pages 6-16, 6-17. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding,: The supplementary study will determine whether the whipsnake is actually present on the Cronin properly and will prescribe appropriate recommendations for redesigning the project to avoid or minimize impacts on the whipsnake. DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY IMPACT: The water capacity of Zone 7 and DSRSD to serve the Planning Area as proposed is adequate, given the current expansion programs nearing completion and the design features contained within the proposed development by the applicant. However, development pressures throughout the Zone 7 Service Area could inhibit ability to provide adequate long-term supplies. Because several portions of the Planning Area proposed for development are located at higher elevations, two additional pressure zones are needed. FEIR pages 7-2, 7-3. Mitigation Measures: To ensure long-term water supply, design and construct all water system/facility improvements in accordance with DSRSD's water management plans and design and construction standards, including phasing and water conservation features. · Pressure Zone 3 shall be expanded and 2 additional pressure zones created for .~: development above 740 foot elevation. Availability of water service for development and fire protection, including adequate reservation of adequate rights-of-way shall be verified~~: FEIR pages 7-3a, 7-4. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding,: Water management plans emphasizing efficient provision of water and design and construction standards emphasizing water conservation will enable water consumption to be minimized and will allow water to be provided in an efficient manner. WASTEWATER IMPACT: Sanitary sewer service to the Planning Area is constrained by the lack of off-site downstream wastewater collection facilities, the capacity at the existing treatment plant in Pleasanton, and the capacity in the existing export pipeline. The Planning Area is not within the DSRSD service area and would require annexation into the District. Improper design, sizing or construction of the sewer lines or recycled water distribution could adversely affect area residents. Also, several existing homes are not served by sewers and are not close to proposed sewer lines. FEIR pages 7-6, 7-7. 2:\WP50x8914B.FI 19 MitiKation Measures: As required by Specific Plan Action Programs 5.2 A-G, the City shall support current efforts to explore the feasibility of a new wastewater export pipeline system and shall request DSRSD to update its collection system Master Plan to reflect the Project approval. The project proponents shall prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation reflecting development phased according to sewer permit allocation. The proposed wastewater system, including the recycled water system, shall meet all DSRSD standards, and develoment areas shall be annexed to DSRSD. Applicable standards of other agencies, such as Alameda County and/or state DOHS and RWQCB shall also be met. All residential and non-residential uses, including existing homes on septic systems, shall be connected to DSRSD's sewer system upon annexation to the District, unless DSRSD exempts a particular home or amends its connection policy. Existing private wells shall be abandoned except in circumstances specified in the FEIR. FEIR pages 7-7 to 7-8a. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Development wig be phased according to sewer permit allocations to insure that there are adequate wastewater faciFaies, and the proposed wastewater system will meet all relevant standards to ensure that the facilities are adequate to provide the necessary treatment and disposal. SOLID WASTE IMPACT: Proposed development of the Western Dublin Planning Area will increase the amount of solid waste generated including large amounts of organic waste, which will further reduce available landfill capacity. FEIR page 7-10. Mitigation Measures: To reduce project-generated solid waste and make more effident use of available landfill capacity, the City shall require the preparation of a Solid Waste Management Plan for Western Dublin with emphasis on composting and recycling, and incorporating the objectives and goals of State mandated waste generation and diversion plans pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6.4A. Require that constraction and demolition debris be taken to qualified recycling facilities. FEIR pages 7-10, 7- 10a. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding,: Preparation of a Solid Waste Management Plan, emphasizing composting and recycling, will reduce project-generated solid waste and make more efficient use of available landfiR capacity. POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT: Increased population due to development of the Planning Area will require an increase in police personnel and possible reorganization of police operations. FEIR page 7-11. 2:\WP5{I~8914B.H 20 Mitigation Measures: To serve increasedpopulation from the project, expand police operations and systems to serve the Western Dublin Planning Area, incorporate Police Department recommendations regarding design and circulation aspects of development pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 6.2A. Take other necessary administrative and budget actions to hire additional personnel and implement a "beat" system. FEIR pages 7- 11, 7-12. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findinft: If needed, additional police will be hired, and other administrative measures will be employed to ensure that residents are adequately protected. Police Department input into design and circulation of project development will ensure that police services are efficiently pro vided~ FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT: Location of the Planning Area places it outside the 1.5 mile zone and 5 minute response time for the Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA). This project would impact the DRFA fire rating. Open space areas adjacent to the proposed houses would create an increasing wildfire hazard over time if left untended. As human occupancy increases in the area, so would the chances of fire as well as the number of people and amount of property value at risk. FEIR page 7-13. Mitigation Measures: As required under Specific Plan Action Programs 6.3A and 6.3B, construct new fire facilities to serve the Planning Area. Incorporate Fire Department recommendations regarding design aspects that affect access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention in the project. Prepare a wildf'~re management plan for the site to reduce the risk of open land wildfires while protecting habitat and other open space values. The plan shall specify ownership, maintenance, use, brush control and fire-resistant landscaping measures, as well as periodic review of these measures, for project open lands. FEIR pages 7-13 through 7-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. RaHonale for Finding: New fire facilities will be constructed to meet the needs of project residents, Fire Department input into project design features will enable efficient provision of ~re services. The Wildlife Management Plan should further limit the project fire protection impacts by reducing the risk of wildfires. PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT: There are potential concerns regarding land and improvements for neighborhood parks, the golf course, private recreation facilities, internal and perimeter open space, the Village Center Plaza, the regional trail corridor, Hollis Canyon Linear Park, and natural open space areas. 2:\WP50~8914B.FI 2 1 · At this early stage of planning, them are no detailed, design-level plans for ownership, management and maintenance of the project's open spaces. FEIR pages 7-17 through 7-28. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures reflect Specific Han Action Programs requiring design-level planning for open space ownership and management generally, as well as for each type of the Planning Area's park, recreation and open space lands, together with additional supporting mitigations as follows: General Open Space: Specific Plan Action Program (hereafter "AP") 7. 1A requires the Project Environmental Management Plan to include an open space component with design level standards to ensure compatibility between project land uses and park and recreation opportunities. FEIR page 7-17. Neighborhood Parks: AP 7.2A and 7.2B and additional mitigations require dedication of three neighborhood parks on land suitable for such use, calculation of in-lieu park fees, and adoption of an open space ordinance or equivalent provisions to restrict park uses. FEIR pages 7-18, 7-19. Golf Course: AP 7.3A requires a golf course ownership and management program which shah include public access to the golf course. Additional mitigations require the golf course program be coordinated with solid waste managrnent, wildfire management and environmental management plans. AP 7.3B requires the City to adopt a golf course ordinance outlining permitted and conditional uses, structural setbacks and height limits. FEIR pages 7-19, 7-20. Other Private Recreation: AP 7.4A requires private recreation facilities for clusters of medium and medium-high density residential development together with related improvement plans. An additional mitigation requires a developer statement outlining the ongoing maintenance, health and safety concerns and monitoring of such facilities. FEIR page 7-21. Intemal and Perimeter Open Space: AP 7.5A requires provisions for ownership, management and access for these areas to mitigate fire suppression, weed abatement, trash, erosion, and slope instability impacts. FEIR page 7-21. Village Center Plaza: AP 7.6A requires that a Village Center Plaza be provided. AP 9.4A requires a conditional use permit to evaluate the site, landscape, design, sign and lighting plans and related support plans, particularly for pedestrian orientation. AP 9.4B requires building design standards to reflect a pedestrian orientation and mixed use compatibility through setbacks, building treatment and parking standards. FEIR pages 7-23, 7-24. Regional Trail Corridor: AP 7.7A requires dedication and construction of the regional trail and the staging areas with related parking and turnaround area. Additional mitigations require efforts to link the regional trail to the Rodeo Park and require a staging area for the Martin Canyon Trail in Cronin Ranch. FEIR page 7-25. 2:\WPS0~8914B.FI 22 Hollis Canyon Linear Park: AP 7.8A requires dedication of land, preparation of detailed park plans, construction of a bike path and trail, provision of a trail crossing at Shell Ridge Road, and provisions to minimize park impacts on the existing Morris residence. FEIR pages 7-26, 7-27. Resource Protection Area: APs 7.9A and 7.9B require permanent dedication of these open space areas with arrangements for long-term maintenance, fire protection access, and establishment of a zoning district to limit uses, lighting and grading. FEIR pages 7-28, 7-29. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen each of the significant parks and recreation effects identified in the Final EIR, Rationde for Finding: Requiring developer provision of parkland and open space, and City coordination of parks and recreation facilities through the Environmental Management Plan, will allow efficient and adequate provision of park facilities. Required design features of the open space and recreational areas will minimize potential land use incompatibilities and visual impacts. SCHOOL IMPACTS IMPACT: The Planning Area is primarily within the Castro Valley Unified School District. The eastern pan of the Hanning Area falls within the Dublin Unified School District. Neither school district would be able to absorb the new students generated by development of the Western Dublin Hanning Area. Both school districts wish to serve the Planning Area. FEIR page 7-29. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 6.1A requires dedication of an elementary school site located to maximize other community functions, and provision of assistance to help resolve the issue of which school district will serve the Planning Area. FEIR page 7-30. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Provision o fan elementary school site will serve project students. The City's assistance in resolving school district service for the Planning Area will limit conflicts and insure that school services are efficiently providett ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS AND TELEPHONE SERVICE IMPACT: Development of the Planning Area will increase the demand for electrical, natural gas and telephone service. FEIR pages 7-30, 7-31. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 6.5A and additional mitigations require the applicant to coordinate with the City and utility companies in planning and 2:XWP5OM~914B.FI 23 scheduling future facilities and shall document that service is available to new development. FEIR page 7-31. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findiner: Coordination between the City, utility companies and the project applicant for scheduling future facilities will ensure that the demand for electrical, natural gas and telephone service is met by allowing development to proceed when these services are available. OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IMPACT: With project development, there may be inadequate provision for community organizations, library services, and other municipal services. FEIR pages 7-32 through 7-34. Mitigation Measures: Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Programs 6.5 D-F, reserve land with suitable access for community organization facilities. Analyze detailed effects on other municipal services to assure satisfactory ongoing service. FEIR pages 7-33, 7-34. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Requiring the reservation of land for public facilities and ongoing monitoring by the City should insure that there is no shortfall of public facilities and services. RUNOFF AND FLOODING IMPACT: The quantity of runoff is increased by project plans to fill Elderberry and Hollis Canyons and to alter drainage in other on-site canyons. This runoff may cause flooding if the Powerline Canyon Reservoir and other drainage facilities on/off site are inadequate. Localized flooding around the Morris residence has been reported apparently from blockage of the Blackbird Pond overflow structure. FEIR pages 8-4, 8-4a, 8-5. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Programs 5.3A and 5.3D require a Master Drainage Plan to further supplement FEIR information on runoff impacts, to provide detailed drainage plans for project phases, to provide design features to minimize erosion, and to coordinate modifications or enhancements to creeks or the abutting riparian area with other agencies. Action Program 5.3B and additional mitigations require detailed plans for retention and detention facilities and other measures to handle 100 year storm events and ensure that project runoff not exceed existing levels. Follow procedures to establish ownership and appropriate design capacity of the Powerline Canyon Reservoir, and obtain permits from the RWQCB. Investigate flooding potential on the Morris property. Design project drainage improvements to accommodate existing and future flows. FEIR pages 8-5 through 8-7. 2:\WP50slt914B.FI 24 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The master drainage plan will require detailed plans for each project phase, which will be designed to minimize flooding. This plan also requires the inclusion of design features to minimize erosion, which limits runoff. Through the development process, the City will require adequate drainage facilities .to further prevent flooding. SEDIMENTATION AND ASSOCIATED IMPACTS IMPACT: The potential for surface erosion in Western Dublin will be increased during construction operations as soil is exposed to rainfall and overland runoff. Erosion could lead to additional transport and deposition of sediments within existing drainage ditches and pipes. Sediments can also damage aquatic life and vegetation. Sediment particles carry natural organic matter and nutrients. Particles washed from urban land surfaces also may contain traces of toxicants. Livestock wastes could continue to affect runoff quality creating health risks for area residents. Sedimentation from project-related grading is a concern for existing and proposed water features including the golf course related ponds and Powerline Canyon Reservoir. FEIR pages 8-7, 8-8. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 5.3C requires the project Environmental Management Plan to 'include a design-level water quality investigation. Additional mitigations require a comprehensive water quality report to examine water quality and runoff issues at a design-level. The water quality report shall include a reservoir plan for Powerline Canyon Reservoir. Discharge permits shall be obtained fo~: the reservoir and abandonment issues for existing wells and septic systems shall be resolved with DSRSD. FEIR pages 8-9, 8-10. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The Environmental Management Plan will include provisions to ensure that water quality is maintained at a high level, and a comprehensive water quality report also will be required to ensure that sedimentation does not decrease water quality. Through the development process, the applicant will have to obtain discharge permits, which will allow further regulation to insure that water quality in maintaineeL MASS GRADING IMPACT: Mass grading has a significant impact due to landform alteration and to removal of natural vegetative cover and wildlife habitat. The extent of grading also can increase the impacts of erosion and changes in surface drainage and ground water conditions. Grading can cause activation of existing landslides and cause new slope failures. Off-hauling of excess material can create excessive truck traffic with associated dust problems, potential damage to existing streets and traffic problems. FEIR page 9-9. 2:\WPSO~8914B.FI 25 Mitigation Measures: A detailed grading plan shall be designed to minimize grading in the Planning Area, to provide a smooth transition to natural terrain, to consider visual concerns, to protect existing trees during grading, to encourage recycled water for dust control, and to balance quantities of cut and fill on-site. Keep visual impacts and tree loss to a minimum through special remedial grading approaches using reinforced earth or retaining walls. FEIR pages 9-9, 9-10. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Compliance with the detailed grading plan, which will emphasize the minimization of grading, balanced quantities of cut and fill, and protection of existing trees, will ensure that only necessary grading is done, and that this grading will be done in such a manner as to minimize these impacts. SLOPE STABILITY IMPACT: Numerous landslides are found throughout the Planning Area. Many show signs of recent activity, and many are massive and/or deep-seate& In addition, debris flow areas and soil creep on steep slopes occur in the Planning Area. Existing landslides, new landslides on unstable slopes, debris flows and soil creep could damage structures or improvements if continued or new movement would occur. FEIR pages 9-10, 9-11. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.2A requires a detailed geotechnical investigation to provide supplementary identification and accurate mapping of all landslides, debris flow areas, and soil creep areas. Specific recommendations to stabilize landslides and unstable slopes shall be related to the proposed development. Design grading so that slope stability is improved. Control water movement with ditches and subdrainage. Identify and stabilize or avoid soil creep areas. Designate setback zones where unstable features cannot by mitigated otherwise. Require the project detailed grading plan to evaluate natural slopes, cut and fill areas and landslide areas and to enhance slope stability through the orientation and location of cuts and through fill design. Establish a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to maintain and repair landslides and other geologic hazards. FEIR pages 9-10 through 9-12. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finth'nZ: The detailed geotechnical investigation will disclose additional areas which may be susceptible to slope instability. Special techniques such as controlling water movement with ditches and through the orientation and location of cuts and fill design will improve slope stability. EROSION IMPACT: Accelerated erosion could create unstable conditions, increase sediment in surface runoff, and cause erosion gullies. FEIR pages 9-12, 9-12a. 2:\WPSO~,g914B.H 26 Mitigation Measures. Specific Plan Action Program 8.2A requires an erosion control plan as pan of a detailed geotechnical investigation. The erosion control plan shall include measures to prevent erosion of existing drainageways and measures for revegetation of graded soil surfaces. Additional mitigations require erosion control before and during grading to prevent erosion gullies and downcutting of streambeds. Temporary structures shall provide erosion control during storm runoff and permanent measures shall provide long-term erosion control. FEIR page 9-13. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The erosion control plan wig insure that erosion is minimize& Through emphasizing techniques to provide both short- and long-term erosion control, erosion impacts will be limited. FILL SETTLEMENT IMPAft: Proposed fills on the site are estimated to be up to 120 feet thick, which could result in significant set~ement. Differential settlement could occur, causing damage to building foundations and utility conduits. FEIR pages 9-13, 9-14. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.2A requires that fill settlement be evaluated as pan of a detailed geotechnical investigation, with feasible measures identified to minimize settlement risks for structures, roads and utilities. Include fill placement procedures and standards in detailed grading plans for the project. Limit structures and improvements in areas that have a potential for high differential settlement. Evaluate the feasibility of removing compressible soils below fills, or design structures capable of accommodating the predicted settlements. Monitor settlement of deep f~ls and postpone placement of structures on the fill until most anticipated settlement has occurred. FEIR pages 9-14, 9-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The detailed geotechnical investigation will provide measures to minimize settlement risks, and to limit construcaon of improvements in areas that may have a potential for high thfferential settlement. Monitoring settlement of deep fills, and postponing placement of structures on susceptible fill until full settlement has occurred will further limit these impacts. EXPANSIVE SOIL IMPACT: Changes in volume of expansive soils caused from changes in soil moisture content, and the effects of corrosive soils can create ground movement that can damage structure foundations and other improvements. FEIR page 9-15. 2:\WP50,~914B.FI 27 Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.2A requires that expansive soils be evaluated as part of a detailed geotechnical evaluation, with measures developed to reduce the risk of damage to improvements from expansive soils. Evaluate expansion potential and provide proper design of foundation and pavement sections. After grading, the corrosivity of soils should be examined with the results used to design foundations and other improvements. Recommendations for moisture control before, during and after construction should focus on minimizing soil shrinking and swelling. FEIR pages 9-15, 9- 16. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The geotechnical evaluation will identzTy expansive soils, and ensure that special techniques are used on these soils to reduce the risk of damage. SEISMIC HAZARDS IMPACT: The Planning Area is not within a cun'ently designated State of Califomia "Special Studies Zone" for active faults. The nearest major active fault is the Calaveras Fault which is located about 3,000 feet to the east. The Dublin Fault, which crosses the eastern portion of the Planning Area may or may not be active. The Planning Area will likely experience moderately strong to very strong ground motion during the life of the proposed development. Damage to structures and improvements, as well as injury to people, may occur due to strong ground shaking during a major seismic event. FEIR page 9-16. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.2A requires that seismic hazards be analyzed as part of a detailed geotechnical evaluation. Direct and indirect effects of groundshaking, as well as liquefaction and lurching hazards shall be assessed. Design and construct structures to maintain integrity during a major seismic event. Designate appropriate building setback zones along the Dublin Fault on the Cronin property, and design utilities crossing the fault with flexible connections to accommodate ground displacement. Apply other mitigation measures ff fault zones are exposed during grading. Inactive faults in development areas shall be mapped and remedial measures prepared to protect foundations, pavement and slope stability. FEIR pages 9-16, 9-17. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finch'ng: The detailed geotechnical evaluation will idenHfy areas where seismic activity is expected to occur, and will require setbacks of buildings in these areas to limit building damage in case of an earthquake. Inactive faults in development areas will be mapped and remedial measures used in'these areas to limit such damage. GROUND WATER IMPACT: Shallow groundwater is present in the Planning Area. Severe damage can result if groundwater is allowed to interfere with structures. With the addition of landscape in'igation 2:\WPSO~914B.H 28 water introduced by development, shallow ground water conditions can become more prevalent. Shallow ground water can increase slope instability. FEIR page 9-17. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.2A requires the project geotechnical investigation to identify all areas exhibiting shallow ground water conditions, and to recommend mitigation for shallow groundwater effects. Groundwater information shall be used to anticipate where groundwater will be encountered during excavation. Subdrains shall be installed according to the standards in the FEIR and irrigation guidelines shall be provided to project home- and property owners. FEIR pages 9-17, 9- 18. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The geotechnical investigation will identify all areas which have ground water, and development will proceed only in accordance with strict standards to protect structures from ground water. Necessary subdrains will be installed and irrigation guidelines will be given to project residents to ensure that irn~ation will not increase ground water. EXCAVATION FEASIBILITY IMPACT: Some of the bedrock formations mapped on the site may contain units that are not easily excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment. Methods such as blasting may be the only alternative. Blasting can have disruptive noise and safety impacts on the environment. FEIR page 9-18. Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to Specific Plan Action Program 8.2C, blasting to facilitate excavation is discouraged and should be performed only after other techniques have been exhausted, and only then in accordance with an approved blasting plan to include noise control and control of flying rock and detonation. FEIR page 9-18. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Use of blasting will be minimized, and will be allowed only if all other techniques have been unsuccessful. Before such blasting may be done, provisions of an approved blasting plan will insure that blasting impacts are controlled. FISCAL IMPACT IMPACT: Mechanisms are needed to finance infrastructure and facilities for Western Dublin. FEIR pages 10-3 to 10-5. Mitigation Measures: The cost of providing needed capital facilities can be mitigated through the adoption of a financing program consistent with the Specific Plan, including a development agreement, area of benefit ordinance, analysis of financing techniques, 2:\WPS0x8914B.FI 29 evaluation of bond pooling, and a citywide builder impact fee system. FEIR page 10-5, 10-6. FindinN: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Adoption of a financing program will identify all necessary infrastructure and facilities for the project area~ Through various financing structures established in this program, the City can insure that such facilities are built as needed~ CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT: The closest existing homes to the west of the Planning Area will experience construction noise during grading of Oak Ridge and North Ridge. The Morris residence is immediately adjacent to consauction areas and will experience intense consauction noise over a prolonged period of time. FEIR pages 11-5, 11-6. Mitigation Measures: Phase grading operations and use berms or natural barriers to limit the duration of noise exposure for neighbors to the west. Noise effects on the Morris residence can be mitigated in either of two ways, by using noise efficient equipment and constructing temporary barriers or berms to shield the home from construction noise and activity, or, by arranging for the residence to be unoccupied during consauction. The identified mitigation measures for consauction of the Brittany Drive extension are not required because the City adopted the RuralResidentialAltemative for the Cronin Ranch which eliminates the Brittany Drive extension. FEIR pages 11-11, 11-12. FindinN: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finth'n~,: Noise-efficient equipment and construction of temporary barriers will decrease construction noise. Phased grading will allow intensive grading to be done at places and at times when there are less noise-sensitive uses in place. TRANSMISSION LINE NOISE IMPACT: The P.G.&E. transmission lines generate noise which could affect proposed homes close to the fight-of-way. FEIR page 11-6. Mitigation Measures: Maintain specified minimum distances between the transmission towers/transmission line right-of-way and residential development to move residences away from the noise source, or, provide mechanical ventilation systems so that residents can keep windows closed for noise control. FEIR pages 11-11, 11-13. FindinN: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 2:\WPS0xgg14B.H 30 Rationale for Finding: Moving residences away from the noise source or installing mechanical ventilation systems so that residents can keep windows closed will minimize transmission line noise. HIGHWAY AND STREET NOISE IMPACT: As development proceeds in the region, increased traffic levels will lead to higher highway noise levels. The Planning Area will be impacted by increased noise levels from 1-580, and by traffic on newly improved roadways within the project site. Traffic generated by development in the Planning Area also will contribute to off-site noise impacts along nearby roadways. Schaefer Basin is the only part of the Planning Area where proposed development would be exposed to 1-580 freeway noise in excess of 60 dB, Ldn. All of the major planned roadways traversing the Planning Area will produce noise levels in excess of 60 dB, Ldn. These streets include Hollis Canyon Boulevard, Shell Ridge Road and North Ridge Drive. FEIR pages 11-6 to 11-10. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.5A requires site planning and building design standards for noise mitigation in the Schaefer Basin Area. Additional mitigations require noise attenuation plans for Schaefer Basin and the major Planning Area roadways The noise plans shall use combinations of building pad height, berms, setbacks, building orientation and mechanical ventilation systems to reduce noise impacts by shielding noise sensitive uses or moving them further away from roadway noise sources. FEIR pages 11-11, 11-13 to 11-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Comprehensive site planning will ensure that noise-sensitive uses are moved away from roadway noise. Highway noises will be decreased through the use of building pad height, berms and other design features. VILLAGE CENTER/NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IMPACTS IMPACT: The presence of different land use types within the same development creates the possibility of noise impacts between adjoining uses, particularly when commercial and residential land uses abut. FEIR page 11-10. Mitigation Measure: Prepare and implement a noise management plan for the mixed use area at an early stage of planning so that site planning can be used in addition to building insulation to avoid noise conflicts. FEIR page 11-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The noise management plan will ensure that noise-sensitive uses are moved from noise-producing uses. Noise impacts will be lessened through requiring building insulation for all new buildings. 2:\W'PS0,,B914B.FI 3 1 PARTICULATES IMPACT: Dust from construction activities would cause a temporary increase in particulate matter near sites of proposed development including the Morris and Schaefer residences, and possibly for some Dublin and San Ram on residents depending on prevailing winds. FEIR pages 12-8, 12-9. Mitigation Measures. Reducing particulate matter effects is largely a matter of controlling dust. Specific Plan Action Program 8.7F requires strict dust control measures for grading. Such measures can include watering exposed surfaces road cleanup, coveting haul tracks, avoiding unnecessary engine idling, reseeding completed grading sites, and limiting vehicle speeds, and monitoring equipment for emission standards compliance. Take special measures in the vicinity of existing residences including onsite monitoring of dust levels, close supervision to ensure dust control measures are followed and/or make arrangements for the residences to be unoccupied during grading operations. FEIR pages 12-13 to 12-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finch'nil: Because reducing particulate matter impacts is largely a matter of controlling dust, the strict dust control measures required for grading, such as watering exposed surfaces and reseeding completed grading sites, will control dust and thus particulates. CONSTRUCTION EOUIPMENT/VEHICLE EMISSIONS IMPACT: There may be localized violations of carbon monoxide (CO) standards due to construction equipment operation. FEIR page 12-9. Mitigation Measure: Monitor consreaction equipment to assure compliance with emission standards. FEIR page 12-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. RaHonale for Findinil: Requiring compliance with emission standards will decrease the vehicle emissions of construction equipment. REGIONAL OZONE EMISSIONS IMPACT: The project would contribute to emissions of ozone precursors through increased vehicle emissions. Although the increase would be small, there are existing ozone problems in the area, and there is a regulatory requirement to produce a reduction in air pollution. FEIR pages 12-9, 12-10. 2:\WPS0ql914B.FI 32 Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Programs 8.7A and 8.7B require the City to encourage land uses which reduce automobile traffic such as satellite work centers and home occupations. Action Program 8.7D allows the use of golf carts on certain Planning Area streets. Action Program 8.7F and additional mitigations require transportation management planning including use of public transit, carpools, bicycles to reduce vehicle trips and including a pamphlet for new residents to advise of vehicle trip reducing alternatives. FEIR pages 12-12 to 12-14a. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project. However, even with these changes, the impact will not be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project Rationale for Finding: The Specific Plan requires the City to encourage land uses which lessen automobile traffic and requires programs to increase the use of public transit and carpools. Although these measures will decrease the project's vehicle miles travelled, due to the existing ozone problems in the area, and regulations which require a reduction in air pollution, these ozone impacts will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. WOOD STOVE AND FIREPLACE EMISSIONS IMPACT: Inefficient wood stoves and fireplaces can add to carbon monoxide and particulate concentrations. FEIR page 12-11. Mitigation Measure: Require efficient EPA-approved wood stoves and fireplace units. FEIR page 12-13. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Prohibiting the use of inefficient wood stoves and fireplaces, which produce air pollution, will minimize this impact. ENERGY USE FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT: Proposed use of fuel for transportation via private vehicles could be inefficient. FEIR page 13-2. Mitigation Measure: Energy-conserving transportation actions are included in the Specific Plan, including a pedestrian-oriented Village Center;, a Neighborhood Center to reduce the length of some shopping trips; a linear park connecting residences, schools, parks and shopping; convenient services; provision for alternate modes of transportation; and other measures to reduce the need for vehicular travel. FEIR pages 13-2, 13-3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 2:\WPSINt9 14B.FI 33 Rationde for Finding: Project design features such as a pedestrian-oriented Village Center and a linear park will reduce consumption of energy. The emphasis on alternate modes of transportation also will reduce the need for vehicular travel, which will reduce energy used for transportation. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES IMPACT: Without consideration of solar and other alternative energy technologies, there could be unnecessary use of nonrenewable resources. FEIR pages 13-3, 13-4. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.8A requires developers to provide demonstration projects and encourage energy conservation, solar, and other alternative energy applications. CC & Rs for the project shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for alternate energy use such as solar heating, thermal mass and clotheslines. FEIR pages 13- 4. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findin~c: The City will require project developers to encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable energy sources. The CC&Rs for the project, which will run with the land and are binch'ng on all future project residents, must allow for the use of alternative energy sources, which will further encourage such use. SITE PLANNING FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION IMPACT: Without careful attention to site planning, including building and window orientation there could be inefficient and avoidable use of energy for space heating and cooling. FEIR pages 13-4, 13-5. Miti.~ation Measures: Specific Plan Action Programs 9.2B and 8.8B require most residential lots and buildings to be oriented for energy conservation as much as possible, especially in flatter areas. FEIR page 13-5. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finch'n~: Energy will be conserved through proper orientation of buildings and windows, and the Specific Plan Action Programs require such an orientation. ENERGY CONSERVATION IN BUILDING DESIGN IMPACT: Failure to provide solar access for buildings could result in inefficient energy use. FEIR page 13-5. 2:\WPS0~914B.FI 34 Mitigation Measure: Specific Plan Action Program 8.8C requires review and residential building plans for energy conservation features. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: A Specific Plan Action Program requires the City to review building plans, and through this review process the City will require energy conservation features to be incorporated into designs. ENERGY-CONSERVING LANDSCAPE DESIGN IMPACT: Improper use of landscaping and outdoor structures can result in inefficient use of energy resources. FEIR page 13-6. Mitigation Measure: Specific Plan Action Program requires the City to include review of energy conservation features in landscape plans including considerations such as shading effects of trees, and heat buildup of paving. FEIR page 13-6. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: A Specific Plan Action Program requires the Cityto review landscape plans, and through this review process, the City will require energy conservation features to be incorporated into landscape plans. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES IMPACT: Although no significant archeological resources are known on-site, there is a potential that future earthmoving activities could uncover archaeological materials. FEIR page 14-8. Mitigation Measures: Specific Plan Action Program 8.4A provides for monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during grading. Follow stop-work and notification procedures specified in the CEQA guidelines if cultural resources are found. FEIR page 14-8. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: An archeologist will monitor grading to ensure that if archeological resources are found, they will be preserved, pursuant to the stop-work and notification procedures required by the CEQA guidelines. ROCK WALLS IMPACT: The rock wall on Machado Ridge will be removed~ Although this is not in itself a significant impact, signif'want impacts could result if the remaining rock wails on Rock Ridge 2.'XWPSO~g914B.H 35 and Shell Ridge are not protected. Portions of the Rock Ridge walls, in particular, could be adversely affected by proposed construction. FEIR page 14-9. Mitigation Measures: Specific Action Program 8.4A requires the project Open Space Management Plan to protect and to generally avoid the rock wails to remain. Adjust limits of grading on Rock Ridge to minimize damage to rock wails. FEIR pages 14-9, 14o 10. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantiaily lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finch'ng: The Open Space Management Plan requires development to protect rock walls. Limits on project grading will be imposed to minimize damage to rock walls on Rock Ridge. HISTORIC SET'FLEMENT AREAS IMPACT: Several locations may contain buried or obscured materials from the time of early settlers. Site alteration is proposed in these areas. FEIR page 14-10. Mitigation Measure: Specific Plan Action Program 8.4A requires archival research on the location and extent of original Planning Area settlements and preparation of a supplementary design-level plan for any areas which might contain significant historic information. The plan can include either construction monitoring or field investigation prior to construction. FEIR pages 14-10, 14-11. Finding: Changes or aiterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Finai EIR. Rationale for Finding: Archival research will disclose the location of original settlements, and if such settlements are found, a supplementary design-level plan will be prepared, which will involve construction monitoring or field investigation to protect these materials. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACT: An investigation has identified hazardous materials on the site generally related to ranching and agricultural use and the presence of power poles with transformers. FEIR page 15- 1. Mitigation Measures: Remove identified hazardous materiais in the appropriate manner. Close or evaiuate existing wells and septic systems. Assess any other hazardous materiais encountered during grading. Prepare supplementary design-level hazardous waste assessments for the Morris and Cronin properties and if unanticipated hazardous materiais are encountered during grading. FEIR page 15-2. 1 :\WPS.lxg914B.FI 36 FindinE: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: All hazardous waste discovered will be removed in the appropriate manner, as provided in federal, state and regional regulations. Any exisang wells or septic systems, which could be dangerous if contaminated, will be either closed or evaluated to ensure that the impact is avoided or substantially lesseneeL TRANSMISSION LINE EFFECTS IMPAft: The transmission lines could interfere with AM radio reception. FEIR page 15-4. Mitigation Measures. The .Specific Plan requires a disclosure statement for residents near the transmission lines, noting that research is continuing on potential health effects of transmission lines. Provide a disclosure statement about AM radio and television interference for residents of homes sold along the transmission line fight-of-way. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The disclosure statement for residents near transmission lines will inform residents of the potential health effects caused by transmission lines, and how the lines may cause potential interference with AM radio and television transmission. Such disclosure will ensure that project residents are fully informed of these potential risks. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: EDEN CANYON ROAD/I-580 INTERCHANGE IMPACT: Without application of mitigation measures, traffic on interchange ramps would operate at LOS F. EIR page 18-2a. Mitigation Measure: Provide improvements to this interchange, including ramp restriping and widening of Eden Canyon Road. FEIR page 18-3. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Findinll: Improvements to this interchange, required as a mitigation measure, will allow the interchange not to operate below LOS D, which is considered an insignificant level, based upon the Traffic Study for the EIR, discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIR, and Appendix D. SCHAEFER RANCH ROAD INTERCHANGE IMPACT: A new freeway interchange at Schaefer Ranch Road would be needed before full buildout of the project. Without this interchange, existing streets and roads would have additional congestion. FEIR page 18-4. 2:\WP50N8914B.H 37 MitiKation Measure: Construct the Schaefer Ranch Road interchange before buildout of the Planning Area. FEIR page 18-5. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Requiring construction of the Schaefer Ranch Road interchange before buildout of the planning area will ensure that the improvement is installed before there in increased traffic in the area generated by buildout of the project. EDEN CANYON ROAD/DUBLIN CANYON ROAD INTERSECTION IMPACT: With the existing land configuration, this intersection would operate at LOS F under cumulative traffic conditions. FEIR page 18-5. Mitigation Measure: Provide improvements for this intersection. FEIR page 18-5. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: Providing the designated lane improvements and restriping will ensure that this intersection will be adequate to serve the new development and its increased demands on the intersection. DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND SILVERGATE DRWE/OTHER CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS IMPACTS: Traffic congestion could occur without adequate funding for improvements on these streets. FEIR pages 18-5, 18-6. MitiKation Measures. The project shall contribute its fair share to traffic improvements. FEIR page 18-5. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding,: Development in the project area will be required to contribute its fair share to traffic improvements so that when such improvements are needed, they will be provided by new development generating the neea~ CUMULATIVE IMPACT: WATER SUPPLY IMPACT: Ongoing urban development in the area is resulting in a cumulative increase in water demand. FEIR pages 18-7, 18-8. 2:\WP5(J~9 14B.FI 3 8 Mitigation Measure: The City shall support and coordinate with areawide efforts to address cumulative impacts on water supplies, including actions by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District/Zone 7, and the Dublin San Ramon Services Disuict. FEIR page 18-8. Finding: Such areawide efforts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Coordination of the efforts of the water purveyors in the area and the requirement that all water systems and facilities improvements are to be designed and constructed in accordance with DSRSD's water management plans will ensure that there is efficient provision of water for the area. Mitigation measures such as phasing of development and requiring water conservation features to be implemented will ensure that water is used efficiently. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: WASTEWATER IMPACT: There is an increasing demand on area wastewater treatment facilities operated by the Dublin San Ramon Services Agency and other agencies. FEIR page 18-8. Mitigation Measures: The Western Dublin wastewater treatment and recycling facilities are mitigations which have been incorporated in the Specific Plan. DSRSD is currently expanding its program to meet service area needs. FEIR page 18-9. Finding: Changes or alterations regarding wastewater treatment and recycling have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. DSRSD's expansion program is within DSRSD's responsibility and jurisdiction. DSRSD can and should undertake the expansion program. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Project improvements must meet all DSRSD and other agency standards, and the required preparation of a wastewater capacity study will further ensure that demand for wastewater facilities does not outpace the supply. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: SOLID WASTE IMPACT: Ongoing urban development is creating pressure on remaining landfill capacity. FEIR page 18-9. Mitigation Measure: The City shall continue to comply with the requirements of the Califomia Integrated Waste Management Act. FEIR page 18-9. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the-significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 1 :\WPS. Ix3914B.FI 39 Rationale for Finding: Preparation of a solid waste management plan will emphasize the minimization of solid waste production. Compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act will ensure that there are adequate solid waste facilities. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT: Population increase will requh'e additions to police and fire personnel and facilities. FEIR page 18-9. Mitigation Measure: The City shall continue to require improvements and to assess fees for new development to cover the costs of additional police and fire protection. FEIR page 18-10. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The City will require developers to furnish improvements when needed and through City fee programs, the City can insure that development fees will cover the costs of necessary additional police and fire protection. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT: Increased population results in cumulative demand for park and recreation facilities. FEIR page 18-10. Mitigation Measure: The City shall continue master planning efforts to assess recreation needs and to plan for new facilities. FEIR page 18-10. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Project provision of significant open space, parks and recreational facilities will absorb much of the demand for such facilities. The City's ongoing master planning will ensure that recreational needs are met, and that such f acililies are efficiently pro videcL CUMULATIVE IMPACT: SCHOOLS IMPACT: Increased population due to new development adds to the pressure on local school districts. FEIR page 18-10. Mitigation Measure: The City shall coordinate efforts with the Dublin Unified School Disu-ict to have ongoing procedures for requiring new development to pay its fair share of local school improvement costs. FEIR page 18-10. Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other 1 :\WP5. 1N8914B.FI 40 agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findink: The dedication o fan elementary school site in the project area will minimize the impact generated by new development. City coordination of efforts with the Dublin Unified School District, if the School District cooperates, will allow adequate and efficient provision of school facilities. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IMPACT: Increased population has a potential cumulative effect on public facilities and services as described in Chapter 7 of the FEIR. FEIR page 18-10. Mitigation Measure: The City shall continue efforts to monitor other cumulative impacts on public facilities, and to require conditions of approval to resolve these issues. FEIR page 18-11. FindinK: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: By monitoring the need for public facilities generated by new development, coupled with the requirement that new development pay its fair share for additional public facilities, when needed, will ensure that increased population will not overload existing public facilities and services. CUMULATIVE LOSS OF OPEN SPACE IMPACT: The project would contribute to the loss of open space in the area. FEIR page 18-11. Mitigation Measure: The City shall support efforts of the East Bay Regional Park District to acquire and secure permanent open space in the area, and/or the City shall establish a fee for mitigation of open space loss. FEIR page 18-11. Finding: Regional park planning actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding,: The project will provide significant amounts of open space. The City shall support the East Bay Regional Park District, and, if needed, shall levy a fee for open space loss to compensate for this loss. CUMULATIVE VISUAL IMPACTS - LANDSCAPE ALTERATION IMPACT: The project would be part of a process where existing rural landscapes in the area are being replaced by urban development. FEIR pages 18-11, 18-12. l:'xWPS. lX8914B.FI 41 Mitigation Measure: Effective mitigation of regional landscape alteration would require action at the state or regional level. FEIR page 18-12. Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The City will regulate this project impact through general plan policies, and through the master grading plan and detailed grading standards that must be met by the project applicant. Similar actions taken by other agencies will further reduce this impact on a cumulative regional level CUMULATIVE LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS IMPACT: Proposed project lighting would contribute to cumulative nighttime light scatter. FEIR page 18-12. Mitigation Measure: Identify ways to reduce cumulative light and glare impacts. Effective mitigation of regional light and glare impacts would require regulatory action at the local, regional, and state level. The City shall review its existing sign ordinances to identify ways to reduce cumulative light and glare impacts. FEIR page 18-12. Finding: Regional light and glare regulatory actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. Changes or alterations requiring City sign ordinance review have been required that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. If regional and state actions to require regulation of light and glare impacts are taken, these actions, together with the City' s sign ordinance review would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Design features of the project, discussed in Chapter 5 of the EIR, will minimize light and glare impacts. Further regulatory action by the City, if needed, along with possible regional and state action, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect. CUMULATIVE IMPACT: VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE IMPACT: There is a continuing loss of existing vegetation and wildlife habitat to urban development in the area. FEIR page 18-12. Mitigation Measure: The City of Dublin shall adopt a heritage tree ordinance or shall take equivalent measures to protect existing trees. FEIR page 18-12. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. 1 :\WPS. 1',8914B. FI 42 Rationale for Finding: As discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIR, development of the project will emphasize tree protection and replacement of trees off-site. Pursuant to the master grading and landscape plans, and additional City regulation, grading, landscaping and stream relocation will be done to minimize disruption of vegetation and wildlif e. CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY IMPACTS: STREAM CHANNELS IMPACT: The project would contribute to the loss of stream channels in the area. FEIR page 18- 13. Mitigation Measure: The State Department of Fish and Game, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the City of Dublin require permits for stream course alteration. FEIR page 18-13. FindinN: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency as well as the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies and the City of Dublin. If taken, such acaons would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Permits must be obtained from the City of Dublin, the State Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before streams can be disrupted, providing additional stream protection to that provided through project-specific mitigations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY IMPACT: The project would contribute to the conversion of existing vegetated surfaces to paved areas used for vehicles and landscaping, leading to a potential cumulative effect on water resources. FEIR page 18-13. Mitigation Measure: The Regional Water Quality Conlxol Board has detailed regulations for protection of water quality. FEIR page 18-13. Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: All projects throughout the region must comply with the detailed regulations of the Regional Water Quality Board~ These requirements provide another level of regulation to protect cumulative regional water quality in addition to that pro vided thro ugh the Project-specific mitigations. l:\WPS. 1Mt914B.FI 43 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT: The project would contribute to the grading and paving of soil surfaces in the region. FEIR page 18-13. Mitigation Measure: Each city and county in the region has adopted ordinances to regulate grading and geotechnical hazards. FEIR page 18-14. Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies as well as the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies and the City of Dublin. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationde for Finding: The City's required geotechnical investigation will identify potentially dangerous areas, and the master grading plan will ensure that grading in these areas is limited. The grading plan also requires that the grading that is done must minimize earth movement. Similar regulations by other agencies should also prevent these impacts. CUMULATIVE NOISE IMPACTS IMPACTS: The project would contribute to cumulative traffic-related noise impacts in the region. FEIR page 18-14. Mitigation Measures: The State of California has regulations and measures for excessive sound levels along freeways. The City of Dublin evaluates new project under its Noise Element. FEIR page 18-14. Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency as well as the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies and the City of Dublin. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: Noise-sensitive uses must be distanced from noise producing uses, and noise deadening features, such as berms, are required in the project. These measures, along with City evaluation based upon its Noise Element, and State regulation of noise impacts can limit these impacts or substantially lessen the impact. CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS IMPACT: The project would contribute to cumulative emissions of ozone precursors, exacerbating existing ozone problems in the area. FEIR page 18-14. Mitigation Measures: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has a primary responsibility for taking action to protect air quality in the region. The District has prepared a Clean Air Plan which includes measures to protect air quality. FEIR page 18- 14. 1 :\WP5.1Mt914B. FI 44 Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Findin~c: The design features of the project will minimize vehicular travel, which will minimize the cumulative air quality impacts. These actions, together with Bay Area Air Quality Management District adoption and enforcement o fits Clean Air Plan, should reduce cumulative air quality impacts. CUMULATIVE ENERGY RESOURCE IMPACTS IMPACT: The project would contribute to cumulative effects on nonrenewable energy resources. FEIR page 18-15. MitiKation Measures: Control of inefficient energy use is being addressed at the state and federal level, through building design and other standards. FEIR page 18-15. Finding: Such actions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Dublin. Such actions can and should be taken by such other agencies. If taken, such actions would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Specific Plan requires lots and buildings to be oriented for energy conservation, and the City is to review residential building and landscape plans to ensure that energy conservation features are incorporated. Enforcement of these standards, along with compliance with state and federal regulations, shouM avoid or substantially lessen this impacts. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT: The proposed project would add to the cumulative impacts on cultural resources caused by large-scale development in the area and region. FEIR page 18-15. Mitigation Measures: The City of Dublin has included cultural resource protection in its planning efforts. FEIR page 18-15. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect identified in the Final EIR. Rationale for Finding: The Specific Plan requires monitoring by a qualified archeologist and archival research to ensure that prehistoric and historic settlement artifacts are not destroyed. i:XWPS. lx,g914B.FI 45 Section 2: Findings Concerning Alternatives The City Council hereby finds that the following alternatives, identified and described in the Final EIR, were considered and are found to be infeasible for the following specific economic, social, or other considerations pursuant to CEQA Section 2108 l(c). NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. FEIR pages 17-2, 17-3. FindinN: infeasible. This option assumes that the project as proposed would not be built on the site. The No Project Altemative is found to be infeasible, because the City' s General Plan has designated the Western Dublin area for planned development, subject to the preparation of a Specific Plan. In addition, the No Project Alternative fails to provide needed housing. The need for housing is documented in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan, and in other plan documents of the City and other jurisdictions in the area. RURAL RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE (200 units). FEIR pages 17-3 through 17-6. Finding: infeasible. As to the Eden/Schaefer Heights portion of the Planning Area, this option assumes the development of rural homes or "ranchettes" on large lots, served by septic tanks. The Rural Residential AIterative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (1)Air clualitv and energy resources. As stated in the Final EIR (page 17-6), rural residential development of this type would have higher per-unit effects on air quality and energy resources. The dispersed development pattern would result in a relatively high amount of private automobile use per household, with little opportunity to use public transit. Chapter 16 of the Final EIR notes that ozone emissions would be an unavoidable impact of this alternative. (2) Geologic hazards. The Final EIR (page 17-6) also notes that in rural residential development, there can be an increased geologic hazard due to uncoordinated grading on individual lots; such a development also may be too small to support a viable geologic hazards abatement district. (3) Housing. This alternative, with only one housing type represented in an area of 3,000 acres, would not meet the City's General Plan Policy 2.1. i.A, "Encourage housing of varied types, sizes, and prices to meet current and future needs of all Dublin residents." REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE (1300 units). FEIR pages 17-6 through 17-8. 'FindinN: infeasible. This option assumes development of 1300 homes and a small commercial area. The Reduced Development Alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (1) Economic viabiliW. It is in the City's interest to have an economically-viable development on the site, in order to provide sound and orderly growth to accommodate the City's needs. In Western Dublin Report 2, an economic analysis indicated that a project in Western Dublin with the mix of uses proposed in the Specific Plan probably would not be economically viable if the project had less than 2800 units. The reasons cited in the analysis were the terrain, distance from existing utilities, and required traffic improvements. (2) Fiscal impact. The Final EIR (page 17-8) notes that this alternative could result in negative fiscal impacts on the City. (3)Unavoidable imoacts. Even with the reduced size of this project, unavoidable impacts on biological 2:\WPSO~8914B.FI 46 resources, visual resources, and air quality would remain, as noted in Chapter 16 of the Final EIR. CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE (3260 units). FEIR pages 17-9 through 17-11. Finding: infeasible as to the Eden/Schaefer Heights portion of the PlanninE Area: This alternative would include the same number of units as the project, but these units would be clustered at a higher density on 600 acres of the site, resulting in more intensive development. The Cluster Development Alternative is found to be infeasible. for the following reasons: (1) Economic viabilitv. The Final EIR (page 17-10) states that there are serious questions of market feasibility and demand for this alternative. The increased density of this alternative seriously compromises the marketability and demand for the completed project as well as the f'mancial viability of the project. (2) Unavoidable impacts. The Final EIR (Chapter 16) notes that this alternative would still have unavoidable impacts on air quality and on biological and visual resources. OPTIONAL SITE ALTERNATIVE (3260 units). FEIR pages 17-11, 17-12. Finding: infeasible. With this alternative, uses proposed for the project would be relocated to another property in Eastern Dublin. The optional site alternative is found to be infeasible for the following reasons: (1)No evidence of overall environmental benefit. The Final EIR (pages 17-11 and 17-12) states that some impacts might increase for this alteralive, while other impacts would be reduced. The optional site altemative is not identified in the Final EIR as an environmentally superior alternative. Thus, while certain impacts might be reduced, there is no clearly-defined environmental benefit to be gained by selecting this alternative. (2) Land ownership. This alternative would not meet the applicants' objectives, since they do not control the land in question. (3) General Plan. This site is not located in the Western Extended Planning Area, and thus would not meet the City' s stated General Plan objectives for development of Western Dublin. Section 3: Growth-Inducing Impacts The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies growth-inducing impacts in keeping with State requirements. The State CEQA Guidelines note that growth is not necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Environmental effects of growth are' addressed elsewhere in the Final EIR. INDIRECT EFFECT ON POPULATION IMPACTS: The project would foster economic and population growth in the surrounding area. No project-related environmental impacts are directly associated with this growth-inducing impact. Cumulative impacts associated with population growth are described in Chapter 18 of the Final EIR. Findings related to cumulative impacts of population growth are discussed under the findings for cumulative impacts. FEIR pages 16-6, 16-7. 2:XWPSO,8914B.FI 47 EXPANSION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES IMPACT: The project will require extension of sewer lines and a wastewater lift station, which could remove obstacles to growth on adjacent properties in Eden Canyon. FEIR page 16-7. Mitigation Measure 16-1: Do not provide excess capacity in new sewer lines and lift stations. FEIR page 16-7. Finding: Based on information supplied by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD letter of March 2, 1992, as referenced in the Final EIR), and other information in the record, this mitigation measure is found to be infeasible. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted upon approval of the project. Rationale for Finding: Recent studies were prepared by the Tri-Valley Wastewater Agency in the Draft Subsequent EIR for the Long-Range Wastewater Management Plan for the Livermore-Amador Valley. These studies found that an infrastructure is not in itself sufficient to induce economic growth. Other favorable economic factors must be present and are generally more important. These studies further found that limiting infrastructure to control growth could result in poor infrastructure planning. DSRSD agrees with these conclusions. b, The application of this mitigation measure could result in inefficient infrastructure planning and resultant costs to the Dublin San Ramon Services District or to others. The section of Eden Canyon in question is not a part of the Planning Area, and there are currently no development proposals for this area. However, the FEIR (page 16-7) notes that there is potential for future development in Upper Eden Canyon. d, A final policy decision on land use in Eden Canyon should be made if and when a specific development application is submitted to the City of Dublin or to other jurisdictions. Environmental review and clearance would be required for any potential development in Eden Canyon, and specific environmental impacts could best be addressed at that time. g, A permanent decision to limit infrastructure capacity would be premature at this time and could have negative economic consequences for DSRSD or other entities. Actions to mitigate this potential growth-inducing impact are within the primary responsibilities of agencies other than the City of Dublin. 1 :\WP5. NI914B.FI 48 IMPROVED EDEN CANYON ROADWAY ACCESS IMPACTS: The project would include major improvements to about 1,000 feet of Eden Canyon Road to provide improved access. Environmental impacts of this street improvement are discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the Final EIR. The improved driving conditions to be provided by these roadway improvements could facilitate the development of properties in upper Eden Canyon. However, these properties are under the jurisdiction of Alameda County, and current County General Plan and zoning categories would not permit urban development. FEIR page 16-7. Mitigation Measures. None are identified in the Final EIR, since the growth-inducing impact is hypothetical at this point, and the City of Dublin does not have land use jurisdiction in the area potentially affected. Finding. Actions to mitigate this potential growth-inducing impact are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another agency. Land use decisions for upper Eden Canyon are within the jurisdiction of Alameda County, and these potential land use approvals by Alameda County would be the primary factor in inducing growth. Necessary environmental review of any proposed projects in upper Eden Canyon would be undertaken if and when development applications are submitted to Alameda County. IMPROVED FREEWAY ACCESS The project at full buildout would require a new interchange at Schaefer Ranch Road. This future interchange would improve access to rural land on the south side of 1-580. The City of Pleasanton is proceeding with planning for possible expansion into this area. The West Pleasanton Sphere of Influence Study provides information on land development potential and environmental constraints in this area. FEIR page 16-8. Mitigation Measures: None are identified in the Final EIR, since the growth-inducing impact is hypothetical at this point, and the City of Dublin does not have jurisdiction in the area potentially affected. Finding: Actions to mitigate this potential growth-inducing impact are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Pleasanton. Any potential land use approvals by the City of Pleasanton would be the primary factors in inducing growth in this area. Section 4: Insignificant Impacts The City Council finds that all other impacts of the proposed project are insignificant, as documented in the FEIR and supported by evidence elsewhere in the record. No mitigation is required for these insignificant impacts. 2:XWPSO~914B.FI 49 Section 5: Miscellaneous Findings With respect to the Cronin property, the City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative which reduces the number of residences from 125 to 2, eliminates the Brittany Drive extension, eliminates the mass grading of Cronin Ridge and the fill of Martin Canyon, and eliminates the destruction of Martin Creek. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21085, the City f'mds that no other feasible mitigation measure or project alternative would provide a comparable level of mitigation for the significant, otherwise unavoidable impacts of the project as proposed. In Section 2 above, the City found all the project alternatives identtZFted in the FEIR infeasible except for the Rural Residential and Cluster Development Alternatives for the Cronin property. Both alternatives avoid or substantially lessen otherwise unavoidable oak woodland impacts and impacts related to the Brittany Drive extension. However, only the Rural Residential Alternative avoids or substantially lessens the significant Landform Alteration and Loss of Riparian WoodlandStream Corridor impacts. The Cluster Development Alternative does not avoid or substantially lessen these impacts, even when mittRations are added. The Cluster Development Alternative avoids or substantially reduces visual impacts of the Cronin project from central Dublin. However, mitigations identified in the FEIR and adopted by the City will allow a Rural Residential Alternative project to avoid or substantially lessen these visual impacts. While both the Rural Residential Alternative, either on its own, or with adopted mitigations, and the Cluster Development Alternative lessen certain signif'want unavoidable visual, oak woodland, and road construction impacts identtilied in the FEIR, only the Rural Residential Alternative additionally lessens landform and riparian alteration impacts. No other feasible mitigations or project alternatives provide comparable mitigation for these additional impacts. Section 6: Statement of Overriding Considerations Section 6.0 General Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Western Dublin project to the City of Dublin against the adverse impacts identified in the EIR as significant and potentially significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, hereby determines that the benefits of the project outweighs the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should be approve& The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to adopt the project and to allow urbanization of the Western Dublin project area. Although the City Council believes that many of the unavoidable and irreversible environmental effects identified in the EIR 2:XWPSOx8914B.H 50 will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures incorporated into the Specific Plan and final development plans as well as future mitigation measures implemented with future approvals, it recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it irreversible environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use and other ,considerations which support approval of the project. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter in Section 6.2 is sufficient basis to approve the project as mitigated. Section 6.1: Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts are associated with the proposed project as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, which consists of Volume I: Draft EIR with ReVisions, dated May 1992; Volume 2: Appendices for Draft EIR with revisions, dated May 1992; Volume 3: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, May 1992. These impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the basic project. Visual 0uality Impact 5.3F: Eden Canyon Alteration. An access street proposed as an integral part of the project would need to traverse a winding section of Eden Canyon. Consauction of this street would alter the visual character of the canyon. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, since this is the only available route for the street. Altematives to the project which could reduce this impact to a level of insignificance are the No Project Alternative, the Optional Site Alternative, and the Rural Residential Alternative. These alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Visual Quality Impact 5.4A: Landform Alteration - Eden Canyon Country Club. About 35 to 37 million cubic yards of grading are proposed for the project, with major landform alteration. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. Much of the terrain is hilly, and mass grading is required to construct a project of this scale in the Westem Dublin Planning Area. The No Project Altemative, th~ Optional Site Alternative, and the Rural Residential Alternative could reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Visual Quality Impact 5.4B: Landform Alteration - Cronin Ranch. Mass grading is proposed for the Cronin Ranch development. A section of Cronin Ridge would be lowered, and part of Martin Canyon would be f~led. Mitigation measures would not reduce this impact to a level of insignificance without changing the basic project concept. The hilly terrain requires mass grading to construct a project of this scale on the Cronin property. The No Project Alternative, the Rural Residential Alternative, the Reduced Development Altemative, and the Optional Site Alternative could reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives except for the Rural ResidentialAlternative have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). The City has adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for Cronin Ranch which avoids or substantially lessens the significant Landform Alteration impact (see Section 1 hereinbefore). This impact is no longer unavoidable and does not require a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2:\WP5(},8914B.FI 5 1 Visual Oualitv Impact 5.4E: Morris Residence. The Morris property and residence is located within the Planning Area. The proposed Eden Canyon Country Club development would involve extensive grading and landform alteration of the area near the Morris property. Mitigation measures would not reduce this visual impact to an insignificant level. The No Project Alternative, the Rural Residential Alternative, and the Optional Site Alternative could reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Vegetation and Wildlife Impact 6C2: Coast Live Oak Woodland, Eden Property. Significant stands of oak woodland would be destroyed due to consauction of the golf course and residential areas of the Eden Canyon Country Club project. These oak woodlands occur along incised canyons proposed for filling, and there are no available mitigation measures which would protect these trees without altering the basic nature of the project. The following areas would be affected: Upver Elderberry Canyon. About 3,600 lineal feet of this canyon would be filled for golf course use, including large stands of oak woodland. The No Project Alternative, the Rural Residential Alternative, the Reduced Development Alternative, the Cluster Development Alternative, and the Optional Site Altemative would reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Upper Hollis Canyon. About 4,800 lineal feet of this canyon would be f'~led for golf course use, and large stands of oak woodland would be destroyed. The No Project, Rural Residential, and Optional Site Alternatives would reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Wildflower Canyon. About 2,000 lineal feet of this canyon would be filled for residential development and a school/park site. A large contiguous stand of coast live oak woodland would be removed. The No Project, Rural Residential, and Optional Site Alternatives would reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Vegetation and Wildlife Impact 6C3: Coast Live Oak Woodland, Cronin Ridze. Large stands of oak woodland on Cronin Ridge would be removed due to project grading. The No Project, Rural Residential, Reduced Development and Cluster Development Alternatives would reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives, except for the Rural Residential and Cluster Development Alternatives, have been found to be in feasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). The City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for Cronin Ranch which avoids or substantially lessens the significant loss of Coast Live Oak Woodland. This impact is no longer unavoidable and does not require a Statement of Overriding Consideration& Vegetation and Wildlife Impact 6D: Riparian Woodland/Stream Corridors. Extensive areas of riparian woodland and existing stream corridors would be destroyed due to the proposed project. Eden/Schaefer Properties. Riparian corridors in lower Hollis Canyon, Eden Canyon, and Songbird Canyon would be removed. The Rural Residential No Project, and Optional Site 2:\WPS0X8914 B.FI 52 Alternative would reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Cronin Property. About 1500 lineal feet of Martin Creek and associated riparian vegetation would be removed. The Rural Residential, Reduced Development, No Project, and Off-Site Alternatives would reduce this impact to an insignificant level, but these alternatives, except for the Rural Residential Alternative, have been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). The City adopted the Rural Residential Alternative for Cronin Ranch which avoids or substantially lessens the significant loss of the Maran Creek Riparian corridor. This impact is no longer unavoidable as to the Cronin Property and does not require a Statement of Overri&'ng Considerations. Air Oualitv Impact 12D: Regional Ozone Emissions. Vehicles associated with the project would conlribute to regional ozone emissions. Given the existing ozone problems in the area, and regnlatory requirements to reduce ozone emissions, this would be a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Mitigation measures in the EIR would not reduce this impact to an insignificant level. Only the No Project Alternative would be an assured way to avoid this impact, however this alternative has been found to be infeasible (see Section 2 hereinbefore). Expansion of Wastewater Facilities Impact 16.4B: Excess Services/Capacity. Provision of sewer capacity to undeveloped properties to the west and northwest of the project site which is in excess of sewer capacity needs projected for the development provided by the Alameda County General Plan for these undeveloped properties is a potential growth-inducing impact. Mitigation Measure 16-1 on page 16-7 of the EIR would limit excess capacity to said area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 16-1 by the City is infeasible because the City does not have the legal authority to control the amount of sewer capacity in the project's wastewater facilities which can serve said undeveloped area. This authority rests with the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Without implementation of Mitigation Measure 16-1, there may be a significant unavoidable growth-inducement effect with the provision of excess sewer capacity in the project's wastewater facilities. Section 6.2: Overriding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the proposed project and does determine that approval and implementation of the project would result in the following substantial public benefits. Economic Considerations. Substantial evidence is included in the record demonstrating the economic benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the project. Specifically, the project will result in: The creation of about 200 new permanent jobs and a substantial number of construction jobs. b. Increases in sales tax revenues for the City. 2:\WPS0~g914B.FI 53 c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits which the City would derive from the implementation of the project Specifically, the project will result in: Increase in housing opportunities in the City and a region where housing is costly and in short supply; b. Increases in the amotmt of affordable housing in the community; An arrangement for the City to contribute its fair share of regional housing opportunities; and d. Provision of upper, end executive housing in the City. Other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating other public benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the project. They include: Comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and extensive environmental premitigation measures not usually found in projects of this type. Dedication of approximately 2,000 acres or 69% of the 3,255 acre project site, for open space. This includes parkland and a regional trail system link through the open space of the project site. This open space will conserve the ecological values of the site and surrounding areas and provide recreational and open space amenity opportunities for residents of the project, the City, and the region. Provision of a championship-level golf course will improve recreational opportunities in the City, the region and will be a positive contribution to the City's image. 2:XWP50,g914B.FI 54 c. Substantial increases in property tax revenues. D. A POTENTIAL CITY FISCAL SURPLUS BY 2018 (APPENDIX C-3). Social Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating the social benefits which the City would derive from the implementation of the project. Specifically, the project will result in: Increase in housing opportunities in the City and a region where housing is costly and in short supply; b. Increases in the amount of affordable housing in the community; An arrangement for the City to contribute its fair share of regional housing opportunities; and d. Provision of upper. end executive housing in the City. E. MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY'S FAVORABLE JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE (EIR PAGE 2-3). Other Considerations. Substantial evidence exists in the record demonstrating other public benefits which the City would derive from implementation of the project. They include: Comprehensive planning incorporating innovative and extensive environmental premitigation measures not usually found in projects of this type. Dedication of approximately 2,000 acres or 69% of the 3,255 acre project site, for open space. This includes parkland and a regional tra~ system link through the open space of the project site. This open space will conserve the ecological values of the site and surrounding areas and provide recreational and open space amenity opportunities for residents of the project, the City, and the region. C, Provision of a championship-level golf course will improve recreational opportunities in the City, the region and will be a positive contribution to the City's image. DEVELOPMENT OF A VILLAGE CENTER, WHICH WILL SERVE AS THE SOCIAL AND COMMERCIAL CENTER OF WESTERN DUBLIN (EIR PAGE 10- 3). 2:\WPSON8914B.FI 54 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM fOr Western Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment prepared by WPM Planning Team, Inc. July 5, 1992 EXHIBIT (insert in Mitigation Monitoring Program if Rural Residential Altemative is selected) Western Dublin SP/GPA Mitigation Monitoring Program ATTACHMENT B Since the Rural Residential Alternative for the Milestone property has been selected by the City Council, the following mitigation monitoring programs are not applicable. Mitigation Measure 4-6: Brittany Drive Extension Mitigation Measures 5.4-1 to 5.4-3: Landform Alteration- Cronin Ranch Mitigation Measures 6-6 to 6-8: Coast Live Oak Woodland Mitigations (as they pertain to the Cronin property; the Coast Live Oak Woodland impacts and mitigations continue to apply to the Eden/Schaefer Heights portion of the Planning Area). · Mitigation Measure 6-13: Riparian Corridor Reconstruction - Maxtin Canyon · Mitigation Measure 11-2.c: Construction Noise Mitigation for Brittany Drive Extension MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: WESTERN DUBLIN SPECIFIC PLAN/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The State of California now requires public agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring program for changes to the project or conditions of 'approval which have been identified and adopted as methods to reduce environmental impacts. The City of Dublin thus is required to establish a mitigation monitoring program if the proposed mitigation measures in this EIR are accepted and the proposed project is to be appro~ed by the City. This program identifies the following: · Who is responsible for monitoring the mitigation? What is the mitigation measure being monitored and how? When shotrid mitigation monitoring be undertaken? What schedule is required? Completion: when should the mitigation measure be in place and monitoring be completed? Verification: what agency is required to ensure that the mitigation measure was implemented? Permit Processin~ and Mitigation Monitoring The mitigation monitoring program identifies the most appropriate and effective times to carry out mitigation measures. Key steps in the processing of the Western Dublin project are identified below, with notes about the relation of each step to mitigation measures. Planned Development Prezoning and Annexation Initial planned development prezoning is required at an early stage of the project review process. In addition, more detailed planned development review will be required for individual components of the project. The conceptual site plan, landscape plan, grading plan, and architectural plans are required at this stage. Mitigation measures involving basic planning actions would be required as conditions of approval for rezoning. Tentative Map At this stage, the applicant submits a subdivision map with street and lot layout. Typically, the tentative map for a project is approved with a number of conditions, particularly those involving I:N8914-E1R~8914.MM 1 technical matters such as street improvements. Mitigation measures involving significant site plan revisions would need to be completed before approval of the tentative map stage. Site Development Review In Dublin, this is an important phase of project review, with intensive staff review of the applicant's submittals. These typically include a site plan, landscape plan, grading plan, and architectural pl. ans. Many of the mitigation measures involving conceptual planning will need to be completed by this point. Grading Plans At this stage, a detailed grading plan is submitted for approval. A number of mitigation measures involving specialized grading, visual impact, and geotechnical issues will need to be resolved by this time. Improvement Plans Traditionally, this refers to the detailed drawings for streets and utilities. Mitigation measures involving these aspects of the project need to be completed before the improvement plans can be approved. For Western Dublin, this also is the stage where the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is required. The Environmental Management Plan will provide detailed standards for open space in much the same way as engineering improvement plans direct development of the built environment. Associated with the EMP are other related plans such as the Hollis Canyon Linear Park plan. Final Map The final map is a legal document which records final lot and street location. This is the last stage for most engineering-oriented. mitigation measures to be completed. Building Permits Some mitigations are implemented when actual building construction begins and the site is occupied. The final inspection for the building permit is the last step before occupancy of the site. Ongoing Mitigation Measures Certain mitigations will need to continue on an long-term basis, during operation of the project. The Specific Plan and EIR provide for various ways to continue long-term environmental l:N8914-EIR~8914.MM 2 protection. For example, a Geologic Hazard Abatement District will provide for maintenance and any necessary repair of landslides on the site. Mitigation Monitoring for Specialized Project Components Certain parts of the Western Dublin project have specialized mitigation measures, with monitoring appropriate to these components. Examples include: Village Center. This mixed-use shopping area is not expected to be built until a later phase of the project. Detailed standards for this area are best handled when a specific developmeBt plan iS submitted for a conditional use oermit. Plan review of the Village. Center would repeat some of the steps for the overall Western Dublin project, including site development review permit, grading plan, improvement plans, and building plans. Neighborhood Center. Monitoring for this small commercial area would be similar to the Village Center. Highway Commercial Area. The specific standards for this area would be applied at the ' time a detailed conditional use permit application is submitted. Public Facilities. The school, fire station, and other public facilities have their own specialized monitoring programs which take into account the appropriate agencies involved. l:X8914-EIR~914.MM 3 Chanter 2: Communitywide Socioeconomic Imnacts No mitigation monitoring required. Only planning recommendations, not environmental mitigation measures are recommended in Chapter 2. Chanter 3: Land Use and Planning Measures 3-1 through 3-11 and 3-17 are planning recommendations which do not require mitigation monitoring. Mitigation Measure 3-12: Protectio~n of Livestock Who: Developers/Real Estate Agents/Homeowners Associations What: Provide a sales disclosure statement regarding protection of livestock When: Prior to sale of first lots by developers/at follow-on sales of homes Completion: On-going implementation by Homeowners Associations Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 3-13: Enforce Leash Ordinance Who: City of Dublin Animal Control What: Strictly enforce City leash ordinance to protect wildlife When: On-going Completion: On~going Who Verities: City of Dublin Planning Department/Animal Control Mitigation Measure 3-14: Establish Do~ Owner Responsibility for Livestock Damage Who: Dublin City Council What: Amend leash ordinance When: Prior to issuance of first residential occupancy permits Completion: Prior to first residential occupancy Who Verities: City Attorney Mitigation Measure 3-15: Minimize Potential A g Conflicts Who: Developers/Real Estate Agents/Homeowners Associations What: Provide sales disclosure statement regarding ag conflicts When: Prior to sale of first lots by developers Completion: On-going implementation by Homeowners Associations Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 3-16: Provide Open Space Fencing, Who: Developers What: Fence livestock grazing areas per Mitigation Measure 3-14 When: Require as condition of tentative map approvals Completion: Prior to furst building occupancy permit Who Verities: City Planning Department l:Xg914-EIRX8914.MM 4 Mitigation Measure 3-18: Open Space Ownership/Management Plan Who: Developers/City Planning Department What: Prepare unified open space ownership and management plan document When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to final map approval Who Verities: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 3-19: Provide Regional Trail Se~nent Who: Developers/East Bay Region. at Park District/City Planning Department What: Implement provisions for a regional trail segment and staging unit When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to final map approval Who Verities: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 3-20: Prepare Regional Trail Corridor Plan Who: Developers/East Bay Regional Park District/City Planning Department What: Prepare unified regional trail corridor plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to final map approval Who Verities: City Planning Department ChaOter 4: Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Measure 4-1: Dublin Boulevard Extension Who: Developer, under direction of Public Works Director What: Provide detailed improvement plans When: Include as condition of tentative map approval Completion: According to terms of Development Agreement with City/Final Map Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4-2: Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange Who: City of Dublin: City Council and Staff What: Continue project development process for a new interchange When: Ongoing Completion: Completion of interchange Who Verities: Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4-3: Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange Who: Eden Canyon Country Club Proponents (traffic studies): City Council (selection of options) What: Prepare traffic studies; select option for mitigation if Schaefer Ranch Road interchange is not constructed When: Require as a condition of Eden Canyon Country Club planned development prezoning l:X8914-EIRN8914.MM 5 Completion: When interchange is completed, or when City Council approves another option Who Verities: Public Works Director Mitigation Measures 4-4 and 4-5: Eden Canyon Road Ramt~s/I-580 Interchange Who: Developer, under direction of Caltrans and City What: Provide deposit or meet other City requirements to help fund design and construction When: Include as condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Construction required prior to development/occupancy of portion of project per Development Agreement or other agreement Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation MeasmSe 4-6: Brittany Drive Extension Who: Developer, under direction of City What: Redesign project or provide safety mitigations (may include deletion of extension) When: Include as condition of tentative map approval for construction of Cronin Ranch project Completion: Construction required prior to occupancy of Cronin Ranch project Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 4-7: Shell Ridge Road Who: Developer/Consultants What: Design Shell Ridge Road with safety features When: Require as condition of tentative map approval Completion: Verify that conditions have been satisfied on fmal map and improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 4-8 and 4-9: Emergency Vehicle Access/Connection Who: Developers of Eden Canyon Country Club and Cronin Ranch What: Provide emergency vehicle access connection to Regional Trail When: Require as condition of tentative map approval Completion: Construction completed before occupancy of units, or as determined by DRFA Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Chapter 5: Visual Ouality and Site Design Mitigation Measure 5.3-1: Site Plan - Schaefer Basin Area Who: Applicants What: Provide allowance for berm treatment and setbacks When: Include as condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Site Development Review permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department 1 :X8914-EIR~914.MM 6 Mitigation Measure 5.3-2: GradinN Plan - Schaefer Basin Area Who: Applicants What: Provide berm treatment on grading plan in Schaefer Basin When: Include as condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Site Development Review permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitii~ation Me;tsures 5.3-3 and 5.3-4: Setback - Village Center (District A1) and District A2 Who: Applicants What: Establish setback from bernl When: Condition bf approval for conditional use permit for Districts A1 and A2 Completion: Site Development Review permit for Village Center Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-5: Highway Commercial Who: Applicant for specific project in highway commercial area What: Demonstrate visual effects of development When: Condition of approval for conditional use permit Completion: Site Development Review permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-6: Street Ali~xnent Who: Applicants What: Modify street alignment of Dublin Boulevard Extension When: Condition of planned development prezoning approval Completion: Verify on improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-7: GradinN Plan - Dublin Boulevard Who: Applicants What: Adjust grading plan to minimize tree loss and grading When: Condition of planned development prezoning approval Completion: Verify before approval of grading plan Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-8: Tree Replacement Who: Applicants What: Include tree replacement along Dublin Boulevard Extension in landscape plan When: Condition of planned development prezoning approval Completion: Site Development Review permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department l:',.8914-EIRX8914.MM 7 Mitigation Measure 5.3-9: Development Above 740 Foot Elevation Who: Developer team for Cronin Ranch What: Revise the Cronin Ranch development plan to eliminate lots above 740' elevation When: Condition of planned development prezoning approval Completion: Before approval of tentative map Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-10: Remedial GradinK - Cronin Ranch Who: Developer team for Cronin Ranch What: Reduce tree removal on Cr6nin Ranch When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: Before approval of grading plan Who Verities: Dublin Hanning Department/Public Works Department MitiKation Measure 5.3-11: Tree Replacement Who: Developer team - Cronin Ranch What: Replace trees to be removed When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit (designation on plans); completion of construction (installation of trees) Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department MitiKation Measure 5.3-12: Site Plan - Oak RidKe Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Include site planning measures to protect trees on Oak Ridge When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department MitiKation Measure 5.3-13: GradinK Plan - Oak RidKe Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Adjust grading plan to minimize remedial grading and tree loss When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-14: Revegetation - Oak Ridge Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Include plantings along the northwest side of Oak Ridge in landscape plan When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department I :X8914-EIRN8914.MM 8 Mitigation Measure 5.3-15 and 5.3-16: Oak Ridge and North RidKe Treatment Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Include measures to reduce visual impact When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department MitiKation Measure 5.3-17. Eden Canyon Site Plan Who: Developer team - Eden CanX on Country Club What: Include site planning measures to reduce visual impact in Eden Canyon When: Condition i~f planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.3-18: Eden Canyon GradinK Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Plan grading to minimize visual impact in Eden Canyon When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDRpermit Who Verifies: Dublin Planning DeparUnent/Public Works Department MitiKation Measure 5.3-19: Eden Canyon ReveKetation Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Plan for replanting in Eden Canyon When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department MitiKation Measure 5.3-20: Emergency Vehicle Access Refer to program for Mitigation Measures 4-8 and 4-9. Mitigation Measure 5.3-21: Emergency Vehicle Access Standards Who: Developer teams What: Provide detailed standards When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.4-1: Grading Plan Who: Developer teams What: Provide a detailed grading plan When: Condition of planned development prezoning l:X8914-EIRX8914.MM 9 Completion: Public Works approval of grading plan Who Verities: Dublin Hanning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.4-2: Master Landscape Han Who: Developer teams What: Provide a landscape plan When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measures 5.4-3: Limit c;f Gradin~ Who: Developer teams What: Minimize land alteration outside the limit of grading When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.4-4: Trails Who: Developer teams What: Hanning to minimize visual impact in trail corridor When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measures 5.4-5 and 5.4-6: Blackbird Pond Enhancement/Local Landmarks Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Provide detailed plans for Blackbird Pond/other local landmarks When: Condition of planned development prezoning Completion: Improvement plan and final map approval (plans); completion of construction (improvements) Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.4-7. Hollis Canyon Bridge Evaluation Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Prepare exhibits for evaluation of bridge When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before improvement plan approval for Hollis Canyon Boulevard Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 5.4-8. Morris Residence Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Han grading and landscaping to minimize visual impact When: Condition of approval of planned development prezoning l:Xg914-EIRX8914.MM 10 Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitii~ation Measure 5.4-9 and 5.4-10. Regional Trail Corridor Who: Developer team, in consultation with East Bay Regional Park District What: Plan trail corridor for minimum visual impact When: Condition of approval for planned ,development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/EBRPD Mitigation Measure 5.5-1. Li~htini for Neighborhood Parks Who: Park lighting design consultant to City What: Plan lighting for minimum visual impact When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Approval of park construction plans Who Verities: Dublin Recreation Department/Public Works Department/Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.5-2. Li~htin~ for School and Fire Station Who: Lighting design consultant to School and to Fire District What: Plan lighting for minimum visual impact When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Approval of building plans Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department in consultation with appropriate agency Mitigation Measure 5.5-3. Li~h~n~ for Private Recreation Facilities Who: Lighting design consultant - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Design lighting for minimum visual impact When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.5-4. Village Center Lighting Plan Who: Lighting design consultant for Village Center applicant What: Design lighting for minimum visual impact When: Condition of conditional use permit for Village Center Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans for Village Center Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.5-5. Neighborhood Center Lighting Plan Who: Lighting design consultant fo.r Neighborhood Center applicant What: Design lighting for minimum visual impact '~ When: Condition of conditional use permit for Neighborhood Center Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans for Neighborhood Center Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department l:',8914-EIRXg914.MM 11 Hanning Recommendation 5.6-1. Offsite Grading: (optional monitoring) Who: Developer team - Schaefer Heights What: Arrange for offsite grading - Donlan Canyon property When: Before submitting grading plan to City Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Mehsure 5.6-2. Transmission Line Clearance Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Obtain PG&E approval of grading in vicinity of transmission lines. When: Before su!Smitting grading plan to City Completion: Approval of grading plan Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 5.6-3. LandscaOe Plan - Transmission Line Area Who: Developer team What: Avoid use of trees which would conflict with transmission lines When: Before submitting master landscape plan Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Hanning Department Cha:}ter 6: Vegetation and Wildlife Mitigation Measure 6-1: Grassland Revegetation' What: Reseed and manage areas of grassland Who: Developer team (reseeding); Environmental Manager (management) When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Establishment of new vegetation; ongoing management Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-2: Buffer Zone What: Designate buffer zones between all shrub/woodland area and new development Who: Developer team When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-3: Grazing What: Strictly control or discontinue grazing in remaining grassland community Who: Developer teams When: Include standards and restfictions in Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Completion: Approval of EMP Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department lS914-EIR~914MM 12 Mitigation Measure 6-4: Northern Coastal Scrub Revegetation What: Include standards for replacement of northern coastal scrub vegetation Who: Cronin developer team When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: SDR approval (plan); approval of improvements (revegetation work) Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-5: Northern Coastal 'Scrub Borders What: Redesign project to substan~ally preserve northern coastal scrub areas on the Cronin site Who: Cronin developer team When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning -. Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verifies: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-6: Tree Survey and Protection Standards What: Complete a tree survey and prepare protection standards for existing trees to remain Who: Developer teams When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 6-7: Coast Live Oak Woodland Reve~etation What: Include standards for revegetation of woodland Who: Developer teams When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 6-8: Plan Adiustments to Protect Trees What: Adjust site and grading plans to minimize tree removal/damage Who: Developer teams When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 6-9: Riparian Woodland What: Modify development plans to protect riparian woodland where possible Who: Developer teams When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department l:N8914-EIR'~914.MM 13 Mitigation Measure 6-10: Riparian Buffer Zone What: Designate buffer zones for riparian corridors Who: Developer teams, under direction of City and other agencies with jurisdiction. When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Hanning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 6-11: Reduction of Altered Area Who: Developer teams _ What: Revise development plans to minimize effect on riparian corridors When: Condition bf approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before tentative map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-12: Riparian Corridor Reconstruction - Eden Property Who: Developer team - Eden Canyon Country Club What: Provide plans for stream reconstruction and revegetation When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before fmal map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 6-13: Riparian Corridor Reconstruction - Martin Canyon Who: Developer teams What: Provide plans for Martin Creek reconstruction When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 6-14, 6-15, and 6-16: Pond Enhancement and Aouatic Habitat Replacement Who: Developer teams What: Provide detailed plans for pond improvement When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Final map or grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-17: Monitoring of Aquatic Habitat Who: Biologist financed by developer fund What: Monitor aquatic habitat and file annual report with City When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Five years after construction of new aquatic habitats Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department 1:~8914-EIK'Ng914.MM 14 Mitigation Measure 6-18 and 6-19: Wildlife Corridors Who: Developer teams What: Incorporate planning and design of wildlife corridors into project site plans When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-20: Introduction of Exotic Plants Who: Developer teams . What: Restrict use of exotic plants When: Condition bf approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Approval of master landscape plans Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 6-21: Control of Pets Who: Homeowner associations What: Restrict domestic pets When: Beginning with project occupancy Completion: Ongoing Who Verities: Dublin Animal Control/Homeowners Associations/Environmental Manager Mitigation Measure 6-22: Herbicides Who: Homeowner associations What: Restrict use of herbicides When: Beginning with project occupancy Completion: Ongoing Who Verities: Homeowners Associations/Environmental Manager Mitigation Measure 6-23: Supplementan, Survey Who: Biologist funded by Cronin applicants What: Conduct supplementary whipsnake survey on Cronin property When: Appropriate time of year before tentative map approval Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department in consultation with California Fish and Game Chanter 7: Public Facilities and Services Mitigation Measures 7.1-1 through 7.1-8: Water Service Who: Developer teams What: Provide information to City and water agencies to assure adequate water service to area When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Before recordation of final map Who Verities: City/DSRSD/other agencies as noted in Mitigation Measure I:N8914-EIR~914.MM 15 Mitigation Measures 7.2-1: Wastewater Who: City of Dublin (Public Works Department)/DSRSD What: Consult with the Tri-Valley Authority on export pipeline system When: Prior to processing of tentative map Completion: Approval of improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-2: Update Master Plan for Wastewater Collection System Who: City (Public Works Departm. ent) What: Request that DSRSD update computer model When: Before submittal of first detailed wastewater improvement plans in Western Dublin Completion: Before approval of detailed wastewater improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-3: Design-Level Wastewater Investigation Who: Developer teams/DSRSD What: Prepare a detailed wastewater capacity investigation When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Final public improvement plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-4: Use of Recycled Water Who: Eden Canyon Country Club design team/DSRSD What: Provide recycled water system to golf course, etc. When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-5: Annexation of Service Area Who: Developer teams/DSRSD What: Annexation of development to DSRSD service area When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-6 and 7.2-7. Improvement Standards for Wastewater Who: Developer teams/DSRSD What: Design systems to comply with standards/furnish documentation that service can be provided When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Before approval of detailed development plans or final map Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department I:Xg914-EIRXg914.MM 16 Mitigation Measure 7.2-8: Verification of Sewer Capacity and Issuance of Sewer Permit Who: Applicants What: Sewer permit ~enificate and allocation When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Issuance of final map Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-9: Treated Effluent Standards Who: DSRSD What: Treatment of wastewater to~DOHS standards When: Condition 0f approval for tentative map Completion: Issuance of final map Who Verities: DSRSD/Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.2-10: Separation of Water Systems Who: Applicants What: Reclaimed water distribution system separation When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Prior to Improvement Plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/D SRSD Mitigation Measure 7.2-11: Documents and Drawings Who: Applicants/design team What: Preparation of separate documents/drawings for the recycled water system When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Approval of improvement plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/I)SRSD Mitigation Measure 7.2-12 and 7.2-13: Wastewater Connections/Wells Who: Existing property owners What: Required water connections and well abandonment where feasible When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Per DSRSD and other agency requirements/prior to occupancy permits issued Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD/other applicable agencies Mitigation Measure 7.2-14: Powerline Canyon Reservoir Who: Eden Canyon Country Club design team/DSRSD What: Include reservoir features to prevent euu:ophic conditions When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Improvement plan approval Who Verities: City Public Works Deparmnent l:NggI4-EIRNg914.MM 17 Mitigation Measure 7.2-15: Planning of Recycled Water System Who: City and applicant/DSRSD What: Coordinate planning of the recycled water system with DSRSD When: During design stage of project Completion: Approval of detailed improvement plans Who Verities: City Public Works Department Mitigation Mehsure 7.3-1 and 7.3-2: Solid Waste Management Plan Who: Developer teams What: Solid Waste Management ~lan When: Condition i3f approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin City Manager's Office Mitigation 7.3-3: Construction and Demolition Debris Who: Construction contractors for applicant What: Certify that debris were taken to a recycling facility When: During construction phase of project Completion: Upon completion of construction Who Verities: Dublin City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 7.4-1 and 7.4-2: Police Services Who: City of Dublin Police Dept. What: Planned expansion of police services When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to project occupancy Who Verities: Chief of Police Mitigation Measure 7.4-3: Police Review Who: City of Dublin Police Dept. What: Review of the planned uses for safety issues When: During preparation of site development plan Completion: Prior to site development plan approval Who Verities: Chief of Police or representative Mitigation Measure 7.5-1: Fire Services Who: Applicants, under direction of Dougherty Regional Fire Authority (DRFA) What: Review of planned improvements and evaluation of expanded services When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval/final building permit approval Who Verities: Fire Chief (DRFA) I:MI914-EIRN8914.MM Mitigation Measure 7.5-2: Wildfire Management Plan Who: Developer teams What: Review of Wildfire Management Plan policies and guidelines When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Fire Chief (DRFA) and the City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.5-3: Fire Facilities Who: Applicants What: Design and construction of Bre suppression facilities When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to Improvement Plan approval Who Verities: DRFAJCity Planning Department Mitigation Measures 7.6-1 and 7.6-2: Environmental Management Plan Who: Developer teams What: Preparation of Environmental Management Plan, Open Space Component When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Recreation Director/Public Works Director/Planning Director Mitigation Measure 7.6-3: Park Dedication and Improvements Who: Developer teams What: Park dedication and site requirements When: Condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Recreation Director/Public Works Director/Planning Director Mitigation Measure 7.6-4 and 7.6-5: Park Sitin~ and Zonin~ Issues Who: City of Dublin/Applicants What: Site evaluation and zoning provisions When: During planned development prezoning Completion: Prior to final map (assessment of park site) approval Who Verities: City-Planning Department/Recreation Department/City Attorney Mitigation Measure 7.6-6 and 7.6-8: Golf Course Ownership and Management Who: Developer and his consulting team What: Prepare a golf course ownership and management plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Recreation Department/Public Works Department/Planning Department IS914-EIRXg914.MM 19 Mitigation Measure 7.6-7: Golf Course Zonin~ Provisions Who: City of Dublin What: Adoption of golf course related zoning provisions When: During planned development prezoning Completion: Prior to final map approval or as determined by City Attorney Who Verities: City Attorney/Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-9 and 7.6-10: Private Recreation Facilities Who: Applicants What: Provide information regard;ng private recreation facilities When: Condition bf planned development prezoning approval, for parcels designated for medium density/medium high density use Completion: Prior to SDR permit approval for medium density and medium high density project components Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Recreation Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-11: Internal/Perimeter Open SDace-OwnershiD/1Vlalntenance Who: Applicants What: Open space program for access, ownership, maintenance and management When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: City of Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-12, 7.6-13, and 7.6-14: Village Center Who: Applicant What: Preparation of detailed plans for the Center When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Approval of Conditional Use Permit for the Center Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-15: Regional Trail Extensions Who: Applicants What: Provide a trail system and staging area When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: EBRPD/Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-16: Trail Linkage and Access Who: Applicants/City of Dublin What: Inter-district coordination of recreation facilities and trails; provide staging area When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department l:~8914-EIR~914.MM 20 Mitigation Measure 7.6-17: Linear Park ConCeot Plan/Ownership Who: Applicant What: Linear park concept plan to address: trails, ownership, funding, maintenance, etc. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval (plans); completion of construction (improvements) Who Verities: Dublin Recreation Department/Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-18: Resource Proiection Area Who: Applicants What: Resource Protection Area: 8edication, access and maintenance requirements When: Condition 'of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Recreation Department/Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.6-19: Resource Conservation Zonin~ Provisions Who: City of Dublin What: Establishment of open space zoning provisions When: During plan preparation and review Completion: Prior to final map approval, or as determined by City Attomey Who Verities: City of Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.7-1: School District Boundary Who: City of Dublin/School District What: Assist with resolution of District boundary dispute When: During plan preparation Completion: Prior to residential occupancy Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.7-2: School Site Dedication Who: City of Dublin and School Dislrict What: Conditions of approval for school site When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 7.8-1 and 7.8-2: Electricity, Natural Gas & Telephone Who: Applicants What: Documentation to provide services - submit service report When: Before tentative map submittal Completion: Final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department l:N8914-EIRNg914.MM 21 Mitigation Measure 7.10-1: Community Organization Who: Applicants What: Reservation of a suitable community facility site When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Prior to final map approval Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 7.10-2: Municioal Seridces Who: City of Dublin What: Assess other municipal serGce needs When: Before development agreement approval Completion: Development agreement approval Who Verities: Dublin City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 7.10-3: Public Library Services Who: City 'of Dublin What: Coordination and support of the Alameda County Library System When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verities: Dublin City Manager's Office ChaOter 8: Hydrolo~-,v Mitigation Measures 8.1-1 and 8.1-2: Master Drainage Plan/Flood Control Who: Both applicants and theft consultants What: Eden Canyon Country Club and Cronin Ranch-Master Drainage Han When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department and ACFCWCD Mitigation Measure 8.1-3: Coordination with Other Agencies Who: Applicant and City of Dublin What: Inter-Agency coordination of permit processing When: During tentative map preparation Completion: Prior to Improvement Plan approval Who Verities: Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.1-4: Drainage Plan Submittal Who: Applicants What: Design details for retention/detention facilities When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department and ACFCWCD l:X8914-EIR%~914.MM 22 Mitigation Measure 8.1-5 and 8.1-6: Mitigation of Increased Runoff/Retention/Detention Facilities Who: Applicant's design teams What: Design of appropriate drainage improvements When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City of Dublin Public Works Department and ACFCWCD Mitigation Measure 8.1-7: Design Standards Who: Applicant's development teirns What: Design standards for on/off site improvements for a design-year storm event When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City of Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.1-8: Golf Course and Open Space Corridors .._ Who: Applicant for Eden Canyon Country Club What: Golf course/open space drainage treatments When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City of Dublin Public Works Department and Planning Department Mitigation Measure 8.1-9: Morris Prooertv Who: Applicant for Eden Canyon Country Club What: Preparation of design recommendation for Morris property When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City of Dublin, Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 8.1 - 10 and 8.1 - 11: Erosion Improvements/Other Drainage Facilities Who: Applicant's design team What: Design and implementation standards for erosion mitigation When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City of Dublin Public Works Department/Planning Department Mitigation Measure 8.2-1: Water Oualitv Investigation Who: Applicant's design team What: Water quality investigation When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Improvement plan/grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Deparunent l:N8914-EIR~914.MM 23 Mitigation Measure 8.2-2: Water OualiW Report Who: Applicant's design team What: Prepare water quality report When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Improvement plan/grading plan approval Who Verities: City of Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.2-3: Treated Water Discharge arrigation)/Dam Safety Who: Eden Canyon Country Club,applicant What: Obtain permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Bd./Div. of Dam Safety When: Condition i~f tentative map approval Completion: Improvement plan/grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD Mitigation Measure 8.2-4: Wells and Septic Tanks (see also #7.2-12 and 7.2-13) Who: Applicants What: Address the issue of wells and septic tanks (abandonment and sealing) When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Per DSRSD and other agency requirements Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 8.2-5: Powerline Canyon Reservoir Who: Eden Canyon Country Club applicant What: Prepare a detailed reservoir plan as part of the Water Quality Report When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Improvement plan/grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/DSRSD Chapter 9: Geology, Soils, and Gradin~ Mitigation Measures 9-1 through 9-3: Minimizing and Balancing Grading Who: Developers and their civil engineering consultants What: Design development to minimize and balance grading When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department and Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9-4 through 9-10: Slope Stability Who: Developers and their geotechnical engineering and civil engineering consultants What: Identify unstable slope conditions and provide recommendations for stabilization; show anticipated extent of remedial grading on tentative map When: Prior to submittal of tentative map Completion: Approval of tentative map Who verities: Dublin Public Works Department l:Mt914-EIRXg914.MM 24 Mitigation Measure 9-11: Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) Who: Developers and their geotechnical engineering consultants What: Establish district to repair and maintain slopes and geologic hazards When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: District established prior to Final Map approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/City Attorney Mitigation Measure 9-12: Erosion Control' Plan Who: Developers and their civil ar~d geotechnical engineering consultants What: Design of erosion control measures When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to issuance of grading permit Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9-13 and 9-14: Erosion Control Who: Developers' teams What: Construction of temporary and permanent erosion control structures. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Ongoing monitoring Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department and CHAD Mitigation Measures 9-15 through 9-17: Fill Settlement Who: Developers and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants What: Analyze ffil set~ement potential, provide fill design recommendations to minimize damage to the development and monitor fill placement for quality of construction When: Condition of tentative map approval ~ Completion: Grading plan approval (plans) Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9-18: Removal and Replacement Of Compressible Soils Who: Developers, their geotechnical consultants and grading contractor What: Removal of compressible soils in f'dl areas When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: At end of grading Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9-19: Settlement Monitoring Who: Developers and their geotechnical and civil engineering consultants What: Monitoring of f'~l settlement before building construction if needed When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Issuance of building permits for structures in areas of deep f~l Who Verities: City of Dublin Public Works Department I:Xg914-Ell~914.MM 25 Mitigation Measure 9-20: Expansion Potential Evaluation Who: Developers and their geotechnical engineering consultants What: Assessment of earth material expansion potential When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9-21: Foundation and 'Pavement Design Who: Developers and their engineering consultants What: Design of foundations, pave_ment sections and flatwork for minimizing damage due to expanding subgrade materials When: Condition ~f tentative map approval .. Completion: Prior to submittal of building plans Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/Building Department Mitigation Measure 9-22: Moisture Control Who: Developers, their geotechnical engineering consultants and their contractors What: Selective removal and/or moisture conditioning of expansive subgrade materials When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Commencement of building construction Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitii~ation Measure 9-23: Detailed Seismic Hazard Evaluation Who: Developers and their geologic consultants What: Evaluation of seismic hazards including; fault mapping, fault activity, ground shaking, seismically-induced slope failures, liquefaction and lurching When: Prior to submittal of tentative map Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 9-24 and 9-26: Earthquake Resistant Design and Inactive Faults Who: Developers and their geotechnical and engineering consultants What: Design of structures and grading for minimizing damage to improvements caused by ground shaking, fault rupture and fault gouge When: Prior to submittal of tentative map (9-26); building permit submittal (9-24) Completion: Tentative map approval (9-26); building permit issuance (9-24) Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 9-25: Dublin Fault Setback Who: Cronin Ranch developers and their geotechnical and engineering consultants What: Establish precise setback line When: Before submittal of tentative map Completion: Tentative map approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department 1:~8914-EIRX8914.MM 26 Mitigation Measures 9-27 and 9-28 Identification of Ground Water Conditions and Utilization of Ground Water Data Developers and their geotechnical consultants Characterize ground water conditions within the Planning Area and provide recommendations for minimizing damage to the development due to undesirable effects of ground water When: Conditions of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department geotechnical engineering staff Mitigation Measure 9-29: Subdralda~e Who: Developers, their geotechnical engineering consultants and contractors What: Provide recommendations for subdrain locations and monitor subdrain construction for quality assurance When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval (plans); after review of final grading reports (monitoring) Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department MitiKation Measure 9-30: Ird~ation Control Who: Developer's landscape architect, homeowners and development associations/maintenance personnel What: Design and control of irrigation practices to minimize impacts on groundwater regime When: Prior to final inspection of building permits Completion: Ongoing monitoring Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department/GHAD/Homeowners' Association Mitigation Measure 9-3 I: Excavation Who: Developers and their geotechnical engineering consultants and contractors What: Evaluate bedrock excavation characteristics and determine excavation methodology to minimize environmental impacts When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading permit approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Chapter 10: Fiscal Imnacts Mitigation Measures 10-1 through 10-7: Financing Policies Who: City of Dublin What: Adopt a financing program When: During project approval process Completion: Before construction begins Who Verities: Dublin City Manager's Office l:MI914-EIRX8914.MM 27 Chaoter 11: Noise Mitigation Measure 11-1: Measures included in the Svecific Plan Who: Applicant What: Provide noise control performance standards When: Conditions of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Prior to final map or conditional use permit approval Who Verities: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 11-2: Construction Noise Mitigation · Who: Applicant What: Designate berms and phasing of grading operations When: Conditions of tentative map approval Completion: End of grading operations and road construction Who Verities: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 11-3: Transmission Line Noise Mitigation Who: Developer What: Provide setbacks or ventilation systems for homes near transmission lines When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Appropriate plans prepared before issuance of building permit Who Verities: City Planning Department/Building Department Mitigation Measure 11-4: Schaefer Basin Noise Mitigation Who: Applicant What: Provide noise mitigation measures When: Condition of approval for planned development prezoning Completion: Before approval of SDR permit/grading plans in Schaefer Basin Who Verities: City Planning Department/Building Department Mitigation Measure 11-5: Hollis Canyon Boulevard Noise Mitigation Who: Developer What: Provide setbacks and berms or alternatives as specified When: Before submittal of tentative map Completion: Appropriate plans shall be prepared before issuance of building permits Who Verities: City Planning Department/Building Department Mitigation Measure 11-6: Shell Ridge Road and North Ridge Dr. Noise Mitigation Who: Developer What: Provide setbacks or ventilation systems as specified When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Appropriate plans shall be prepared before issuance of building permit Who Verities: City Planning Department/Building Department 1:Ng914-EIR~914.MM 28 Mitigation Measure 11-7: Mixed Use Village Center/Neighborhood Center Noise Mitigation Who: Developer What: Prepare noise management plan for mixed use areas When: In conjunction with conditional use permit submittal Completion: Conditional use permit approvals for Village Center/Neighborhood Center Who Verities: City Planning Department Chanter 12: Air Quality Mitigation Measure 12-1: Permit P}ocessing Priority Who: City of Dublin What: Provide permit processing priority for uses encouraged in the Specific Han When: At time of permit applications Completion: Permit approval Who Verities: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 12-2: Zonin~ and Other. Land Use Re~alation Who: City Hanning Department/City Attomey What: Permit favorable uses in zoning provisions for Western Dublin When: Prepare/review zoning provisions as part of planning process Completion: Before detailed plan approvals in Harming Area Who Verities: Dublin City Attorney Mitigation Measure 12-3: Building Permit Processing Who: Applicants What: Meet standards for efficient wood stoves/outlets for electric cars When: Provide information on building plans Completion: Building plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Building Department Mitigation Measure 12-4: Public Works Standards for Golf Carts Who: Eden applicant (provide facilities); City Public Works Dept. (provide permission) What: Facilitate use of certain public streets by golf carts When: Before submittal of detailed street improvement plans Completion: Street improvement plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 12-5: Grading Permit Processing - Dust Control (see also 12-7, 12-8) Who: City of Dublin applies measures for applicants What: Strict dust control measures for grading When: In conjunction with submittal of detailed grading plans Completion: Detailed grading plan approval Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department I:M~914-EIR~914.MM 29 Mitigation Measure 12-6: Other Conditions of Avvroval Who: Applicants What: Transportation Management Plan and explanatory pamphlet When: Conditions of tentative map approval Completion: Prior to occupancy Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 12-7 and 12-8: Construction Dust Who: Applicant What: Detailed construction dust ~ontrol measures When: Conditiong of tentative map approval Completion: Completion of grading Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 12-9: Vehicle Trip Reduction. See Mitigation Measure 13-1. Mitigation Measure 12-10: Construction EcluiDment Emissions Who: Applicants, under direction of City What: Monitor construction equipment to assure compliance with existing emission stds. When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Completion of construction Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Chaoter 13: Enerl~y Conservation Mitigation Measure 13-1: Energy Conserving Transportation Measures Who: Applicants What: Provide energy conserving land uses and other features When: In conjunction with planned development submittal Completion: SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 13-2: Demonstration Projects Who: Applicants What: Provide demonstrations of cost-effective energy conservation techniques When: At time of SDR permit applications for clubhouse, school, model homes, Village Center, and/or fire station Completion: Before approval of building plans for these facilities Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department/Building Department I:~914-E/R~914.MM 30 Mitigation Measure 13-3: Review of Deed Restrictions Who: City Hanning Department What: Review CC&Rs for proposed projects to assure flexibility for energy conservation applications When: At time of CC&R submittal to City Completion: Before approval of CC&Rs Who Verities: City Attorney/Planning Department Mitigation Measure 13-4: Review of District Site Plans Who: Applicants What: Provide energy conservation benefits in site plans When: At time of site plan review by City Completion: Before approval of SDR permit Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Mitigation Measure 13-5: Review of Buildin~ Plans Who: City of Dublin What: Check for energy conservation measures When: At time of building plan submittal to City Completion: Before approval of building plans Who Verities: Dublin Building Department Mitigation Measure 13-6: Review of Landscape Plans Who: City of Dublin What: Check for energy conservation measures When: At time of detailed landscape plan submittal to City Completion: Before approval of landscape plans Who Verities: Dublin Planning Department Chaoter 14: Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 14-1: Prehistoric Resources Who: Applicants What: Provide monitoring by an archaeologist during construction in key areas When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: End of sensitive construction period Who Verities: City Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 14-2: Notification Procedures Who: City Inspector What: Procedures to follow if archaeological materials are found When: Condition of PD prezoning Completion: End of construction period Who Verities: City Public Works Department/Building Department 1:X8914-EIRX8914.MM 3 1 Mitii~ation Measure 14-3: Rock Walls Who: Applicant's consultant who prepares the Open Space Management Plan What: Include protection measures for rock walls in Open Space Management Plan When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 14-4: Rock Walls - Gradin~ on Rock Ridge Who: Applicant's consultant - civil engineer What: Adjust limit of grading on Rock Ridge to minimize damage to rock walls When: Condition bf tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City Planning Department/Public Works Department Mitii~ation Measure 14-5: Historic Settlement Areas Who: Applicants' consultants - archaeologists What: Complete research and prepare mitigation plan for historic resources When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Grading plan approval Who Verities: City Planning Department/Public Works Department Chanter 15: Other Environmental Issues Mitigation Measure 15.1-1 and 15.1-2: Removal of Hazardous Materials Who: Developers' consultants What: Remove hazardous materials from site When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: Before general site grading begins Who Verities: City Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 15.1-3: Wells and Septic Tanks See monitoring program for Mitigation Measure 7.2-12. Mitigation Measure 15.1-4: Further Assessment of Hazardous Materials Who: Applicant What: Assess hazardous materials encountered during grading When: Condition of tentative map approval Completion: End of construction Who Verities: City Public Works Department lS914-EIRX8914.MM 32 Mitigation Measure 15.1-5: Morris and Cronin Prol~erties Who: Applicant for Cronin Ranch; applicant for Morris property (if development proposed) What: Perform detailed hazardous materials assessment When: Condition of tentative map approval for specific property Completion: Approval of grading plan Who Verities: City Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 15.2-1 and 15.2-2: Transmission Lines Who: AppLicant _ What: Require disclosure statement When: Condition bf tentative map approval Completion: Before occupancy of individual parcels Who Verities: City Building Department (Chapters 16 and 17 do not have mitigation measures requiring monitoring.) Chapter 18: Cumulative Imoacts Mitigation Measure 18.2-1: Eden Canyon Road Raml~s/I-580 Who: Developer, under direction of Caltrans What: Deposit monies or meet other City requirements to fund design and construction of required improvements When: Include construction of interchange improvements as condition of approval Completion: Per Development Agreement Who Verities: Caltrans and Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 18.2-2: San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard Who: Developer, under direction of City of Dublin What: Deposit monies or meet other City requirements to fund design and construction (by Assessment DisUict or traffic impact fee) When: Include as condition of tentative map approval Completion: Per Development Agreement Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 18.2-3: Foothill Road/Dublin Canyon Road Who: Developer, under direction of City (Dublin and Pleasanton) What: Deposit monies or meet other City requirements to help fund design and construction Coy Assessment District or traffic impact fee) When: Include as condition of tentative map approval. Completion: Prior to project buildout Who Verities: Dublin and Pleasanton Public Works Department I:X8914-EIRN8914.MM 33 Mitigation Measure 18.2-4: Schaefer Ranch Road Interchange Who: Developer, under direction of Caltrans What: Deposit monies or meet other City requirements to fund design and construction When: Include as condition of approval for tentative map Completion: Construction required in keeping with Development Agreement Who Verities: Caltrans and Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 18.2-5: Eden Canyon Road/Dublin Canyon Road See monitoring program for Mitigation Measure 18.2-1. Mitigation MeasmSe 18.2-6:'Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive Who: Applicants What: Contribute fair share to improvements When: Include as condition of tentative map approval Completion: Per development agreement with City Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 18.2-7: Other Cumulative Traffic Impacts Who: Applicants What: Contribute fair share to improvements When: Include as condition of tentative map approval Completion: Per development agreement with City Who Verities: Dublin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures 18.3-1 and 18.3-2: Water Supply - Cumulative Impacts Who: City of Dublin What: Support and coordinate areawide efforts to address water supply impacts When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verities: Public Works Department/DSRSD , Mitigation Measure 18.3-3: Water Recycling Who: Applicant What: Incorporate water recycling facilities into project (part of Specific Plan) When: Include in adopted Specific Plan Completion: Adoption of Specific Plan Who Verities: City Planning Department/DSRSD IS914-EIRMt914.MM 34 Mitigation Measure 18.3-4: Coordinate with and support DSRSD Master Plannin~ Who: City of Dublin What: Coordinate and support DSRSD master planning efforts When: ongoing Completion: Ongomg Who Verities: City Public Works Department Mitigation Measure 18.3-5: Solid Waste Who: City of Dublin What: Continue to comply with thd requirements of the Calif. Integrated Waste Management Act When: Ongoing Completion: Ongmng Who Verities: City Manager's Office Mitigation Measure 18.3-6: Police and Fire Protection Who: City Police Department/DRFA What: Continue to require improvements and assess fees When: Ongoing Completion: Ongmng Who Verities: Police Depanment/DRFA Mitigation Measure 18.3-7: Parks and Recreation Who: City Recreation Department What: Continue master planning efforts to assess recreation needs When: Ongoing Completion: Ongomg Who Verities: City Recreation Department Mitigation Measure 18.3-8: Schools Who: City of Dublin What: Continue to coordinate efforts with the Dublin Unified School District When: Ongoing Completion: Ongo~ng Who Verities: City Planning Department Mitigation Measure 18.3-9: Other Cumulative Issues Who: City of Dublin What: Continue to monitor other cumulative impacts on public facilities When: Ongoing Completion: Ongmng Who Verities: City Manager's Office l:X8914-EIR%g914.MM 35 Mitigation Measure 18.4-1: Cumulative Loss of Ol~en Space Who: City of Dublin What: Support efforts of the East Bay Regional Park District and other entities to secure open space When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verities: .City Recreation Department Mitigation Measure 18.4-2: Cumulative Night Lighting Who: City of Dublin What: Review ordinances to identify ways to reduce cumulative light and glare impacts When: Ongoing Completion: Ongoing Who Verities: City Attomey/Planning Department Mitigation Measure 18.4-3: Heritage Tree Protection Who: City of Dublin What: Adopt a heritage tree ordinance or take equivalent measures When: At lime of Western Dublin zoning provision preparation, or as directed by City Attorney Completion: Prior to commencement of construction Who Verities: City Attorney 1:~914-EIR~914.MM 36 Appendix M-1 Sample Mitigation Monitoring Forms Note: these sample forms have been included for general reference purposes only. The City may use other forms or revise these forms as needed to meet specific needs. Tracking CEQA Mitigation Measures Und/er, A,B 3180 ~---~, MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST Monitoring Phase: [""] Pm-Conswuction Project Case Name/Number: Construction B rief Description of P. roject: Project Location: Requirement Met or Is Continuing To Be Met: Date Yes No DesCription of Project Mitigation Measures 1. 2. 3. 4. '- 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. Comments: 10 Trackln~QA MRIgatlon Metfares Under AB 3180 Trustee Agency Monitoring Program/Report: ProFaro/Report Complete Trustee Agency Date Yes No Copies of This Form Distributed to: City Council Members Public Works Director Responsible Agencies Planning Director Fire Chief Other Trusted Agencies I hereby certify that I have inspected the project site and that the above information is tmc to the best of my knowledge. Name (Print) Representing (Agency/Firm) Signattire Date 11 Tracking CEQA Mitigation Measures Unde,~'-~a 3180 .. VERIFICATION REPORT DATE: ARRIVAL TIME: DEPARTURE TIME: LOCATION: Construction Sheet No.: CONDITION: -, COMPLIANCE: DACCEPTABLE ACTIVITY: DISCIPUNE: Archaeology BioloGy  Soils/Geology Other UNACCEPTABLE: [:] Remedial Action Implemented El Require Work Stop El Follow-up Required OBSERVATIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS: BY: RECEIPT BY PROJECT SUPERVISOR: Signature: J REPORT APPROVAL (MM): Date: Time: Ccmments/Actions: COPIES ISSUES: I/'3 MM Others (list): Date Entered To Environmental Monitcring File: By: PBOJECT NAHE: APPROVAL DATEs FILE HUHIIEI1S: EIR OR CO)IDITIONAL HtX;. DEC.x The following environmental mitigation measure~ were incorporal~ed into ~he Conditions of Approval for this project In order to mitiSat~ identified environmental impsate to s level of insil~nlflcance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates thdt this mitigation measure has been complied with end implemented, and fulfills the Clty's monltorlqg requirements with respect to Assembly BIll )100 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). HltiSatlon Heasure Type { I I I 2. | I 3. I S I 5. I I 6. Honi toring Dept. Shown on. Plans l I I { I I I ~ · I · ' '~ ' ' ' ' ' "::? :" I . ' .... I Verified Implementation , Remarks 7 .... (number;d me neceeoary) , Explanat,lon or Headings, Type = Pro3ect, onSolng, cumulative. Honltorlng Dept.- Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring s particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans - When mltilpmtion measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation - When mitigation measure hae been implements. d, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks - Area for desorlblng EtatUB Of ongolng mitigation mensure, or for other information. RD-AppendxP