HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Attch 5 Exh A CC Reso RESOLUTION NO. XX - 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS (FREDRICH/VARGAS) PROJECT
PLPA 2013-00035
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company LLC, proposes to
create a development of 48 single-family detached homes on an 11 .11 acre site known as the
Frederick and Vargas properties. The proposed development and applications are collectively
known as the "Project", and
WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan/Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment to change the land use designations from: Medium-High Density Residential and
Neighborhood Commercial and combining the existing Medium Density Residential to a
combination of Medium Density Residential (6.16 acres) and Open Space (3.06 acres) and 1.89
acres of associated road right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the application also includes Planned Development rezoning with a related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map 8133; and
WHEREAS, the Project also includes a CEQA Addendum; and
WHEREAS, the Project Site consists of two existing parcels, the approximately 7.93
gross acre Fredrich property located at 6960 Tassajara Road and the approximately 5 gross
acre Vargas property at 7020 Tassajara Road (APNs 986-0004-002-01 and 986-0004-002-03);
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State
guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for
environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental
Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May
10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could
not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring
program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein
by reference); and
WHEREAS, based on Medium Density Residential and General Commercial land use
designations for the Fredrich property, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed future development of
up to dwellings and sf of commercial use. On May 16, 2006, the City Council
approved Resolution 71-06 (incorporated herein by reference) for a supplemental Mitigated
Page I of 4 EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 5
Negative Declaration (MND) for the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project, which also included
annexation of the Fredrich property but no proposed development or change in land use on the
site; and
WHEREAS, based on Medium Density and Medium High Density Residential land use
designations for the Vargas property, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed future development of
up to 55 dwellings. On , 2007, the City Council approved Resolution 57-07 (incorporated
herein by reference) for a supplemental MND for the Vargas project consisting of 33 dwellings;
and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from
development of the Eastern Dublin area and the Project site, some of which would apply to the
Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the
proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the
Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated , 2014 describing the project and
finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior
EIR and MNDs. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public
hearing on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a staff report, dated July 22, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference,
described and analyzed the Project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX
(incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA
Addendum for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing
on the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, a staff report dated , 2014 and incorporated herein by reference
described and analyzed the project and related Addendum for the City Council and
recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and
WHEREAS, on , 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing
on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIR and
MNDs and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any
action on the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
2 of 4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to
support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the
proposed project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum,
the prior CEQA documents, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in
the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information
contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the
CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the
record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included
below are incorporated herein by reference:
1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects
affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major
revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all
potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for
project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially
more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All
previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs continue
to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable.
2. The Addendum and its related Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts
of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet
any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the
following:
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project
because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards
under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or
Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA
documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by
reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Tassajara
Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
reference.
3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2298196.1
4 of 4
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT
PLPA-2012-00051
July 22,2014
On May 10, 1993,the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93,certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH#91103064).The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR
dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative.The City Council
adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the
reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994,the City Council adopted a
second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin.The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a
20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR,many implementing projects have been
proposed,relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
In 2006,a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak and Fallon
Crossing project,which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis. In
this Addendum,this document will be referred to as the Fredrich Project Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND). The MND was approved by the City Council on May 16,
2006 by Resolution No. 71-06 and addressed all topics included in the standard CEQA
checklist. The MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning,annexing and developing up to
103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-acre Mission Peak property on the east side of
Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek.The MND did not assume any development on the
Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however,the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP,
Appendix 4).
In 2007,the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5-acre (gross) site Vargas property. In this Initial
Study,this CEQA document will be called the Vargas MND.The Vargas MND analyzed
the environmental impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan at a less intense land use density than the 55 units assumed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR,approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property,
approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of
Dublin.The project included development of 33 single-family dwellings on the site and
analyzed all environmental topics included in the standard CEQA checklist.The State
Clearinghouse Number for this CEQA document is#2007032020.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the
Project,as described below.
EXHIBIT A
Project Description
The proposed project includes demolishing the two existing single-family dwellings on
the site and other accessory buildings, subdividing the site into up to 54 single-family
lots,two internal small private open space areas,and a large open space area including a
public pathway on the western and southern sides of the site, grading of the site,
extension of utilities and constructing one dwelling on each of the lots.
The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the project:
amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan,a PD rezoning
with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan,a Site Development Review (SDR)
Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study,the Tassajara
Highlands property has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin approvals in
1993, and has been the subject of two previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations
(MNDs). The Tassajara Highlands property consists of merging the adjacent Fredrich and
Vargas properties into a single property for purposes of development.The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified numerous environmental impacts, and numerous mitigations were adopted upon
approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan.For identified
impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance,the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations. Similarly,Mitigated Negative Declarations for the Fredrich
property in 2006 and the Vargas property in 2007 identified supplemental impacts and
mitigation measures. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern
Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 Fredrich property MND and the 2007
Vargas property MND that are applicable to the project and project site continue to apply to
the currently proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study.The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate
CEQA review for the Project,which proposes minor changes to the land use designations and
Planned Development zoning. If approved,the proposed project would reduce the number of
potential dwellings on the site from up to 101 to up to 54 dwellings.
The applicant is also seeking City approval of amendments to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development
Plan, Site Development Review approval and a Vesting Tentative Map.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated July 22,2014,incorporated herein by
reference,to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project
Through this Initial Study,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative
Declaration is required for the plan and zoning amendments or the refined development
details.
Page 2
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a
review of these conditions,the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative
declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant
impacts?There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR,as supplemented by the 2006 MND. and 2007 MND.The Project is
similar to land uses for the project site analyzed in all previous CEQA documents and
the number of dwellings has been reduced. As demonstrated in the Initial Study,the
proposed land uses on the site is not a substantial change to either the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR analysis or the 2006 MND or the 2007 MND analysis and will not result
in additional significant impacts,and no additional or different mitigation measures
are required.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts?There are no substantial changes in the conditions
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND or the 2007 MND.This is documented
in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated July 22,2014.
c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a
significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe;
or,previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous
EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt
them? As documented in the attached Initial Study,there is no new information showing a
new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA
documents. Similarly,the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation
measures are required for the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply
to the Project.The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations
associated with the proposed development on the Fredrich and Vargas properties.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise,of the Project beyond
those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous CEQA documents for the site,as
documented in the attached Initial Study.
Conclusion.This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated July 22,2014.The Addendum and Initial Study review the
proposed General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments,the Planned
Development rezoning, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map as
discussed above.Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study,the City
determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or
Page 3
negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and
15163.The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND and the 2007
MND adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the land use designation
change for the Fredrich and Vargas properties as documented in the attached Initial Study.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines,the Addendum need not be circulated for
public review,but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making
a decision on this project.
The Initial Study,Eastern Dublin EIR,the 2006 MND,the 2007 MND and all resolutions
cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during
normal business hours in the Community Development Department,Dublin City Hall, 100
Civic Plaza,Dublin CA.
Page 4
EXHIBIT B
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of
the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those
impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable
(Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993). The City Council carefully considered each
impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The
City Council is currently considering the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas)
project. The project proposes a residential development on the west side of
Tassajara Road at 6960 and 7020 Tassajara Road. The project site was also
analyzed in two supplemental Mitigated Negative Declarations. The first was for
the Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing project and was adopted on May 16, 2006 by
City Council Resolution No. 71-06. The second was for the Vargas project and
was adopted through City Council Resolution 57-07 on May 1, 2007.
The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the
original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a
2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations
for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Tassajara
Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.1 The City Council believes that many of
the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be
substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern
Dublin approvals and the subsequent 2006 and 2007 approvals, to be
implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City
Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it
unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified
adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to
acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use,
and other considerations that support approval of the project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the
Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) project.
Land Use Impact 3.1/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands;
Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although
development has occurred south of the project area, the site is largely
.,
...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the
later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a
Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, _(2002).
1
EXHIBIT B
undeveloped open space land. Future development of the Tassajara Highlands
site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway
Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through
planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart
Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue
to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future
development on the Tassajara Highlands site will generate less traffic than
anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but will still incrementally contribute to the
unavoidable freeway impacts.
Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road/1-580 Ramps,
Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The project will be required to implement
all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the
City's TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be
identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non-
Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage Impact
3.51F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment,
Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the
project will contribute to increased energy consumption.
Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.618. Earthquake Ground Shaking,
Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the project
could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the
Eastern Dublin planning area.
Air Quality Impacts 3.11/A, 8, C, and E. Future development of the project will
contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile and stationary source emissions.
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the
benefits of the Eastern Dublin project approvals against the significant and
potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future
development on the Tassajara Highlands (Fredrich/Vargas) site against its
benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed
by the benefits of the project as further set forth below.
The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the
comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals.
Prior approvals provided important protections to Tassajara Creek and through
reasonable and protective designations for sensitive creek areas; the project will
implement these protections through previously adopted mitigation measures
and current development standards. The project will provide approximately 48
2
units of needed housing as well as maintaining open space on the site.
Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities
for Dublin residents.
2298238.1
3
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS
PROJECT
(Vargas & Fredrich Parcels)
PLPA 2012- 00051
INITIAL STUDY
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag,Urban Planner
July 22,2014
Table of Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................2
Applicant/Contact Person...........................................................................................3
Project Location and Context ......................................................................................3
Prior Environmental Review Documents..................................................................4
ProjectDescription........................................................................................................6
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................17
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................19
Attachment to Initial Study .........................................................................................32
1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................32
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................36
3. Air Quality .............................................................................................38
4. Biological Resources .............................................................................41
5. Cultural Resources................................................................................50
6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................53
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................56
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................57
9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................59
10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................63
11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................64
12. Noise .......................................................................................................64
13. Population and Housing......................................................................67
14. Public Services.......................................................................................67
15. Recreation...............................................................................................70
16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................71
17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................75
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................78
InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................................................79
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................79
References ......................................................................................................................79
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts
of implementing the proposed project described below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief
explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the
proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns
etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on
a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That
EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the
following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and
Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage,
Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural
Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations.
In 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak/Fallon
Crossing project, which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the analysis.
This CEQA document was approved by the City Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution
No. 71-06. The Fredrich Project MND analyzed the impacts of prezoning, annexing and
developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-acre Mission Peak property on
the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek. The MND included the Fredrich
property on the west side of Tassajara Road but did not assume any development on
the Fredrich property as part of the analysis; however, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
and EIR assumed the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP,
Appendix 4).
In 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 4.35-acre Vargas property. This will be referred
to as the "Vargas Project MND." The Vargas Project MND analyzed the environmental
impacts of amending the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan from
Medium-High to a Medium Density land use designation, approving a Stage 1
Development Plan and prezoning for the property, approving a pre-annexation
agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the City of Dublin. The project
included development of 33 dwellings on the site.
The subject of this Initial Study is a proposed General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan
Amendment, a PD rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review (SDR), a vesting tentative subdivision map and related
applications to develop the 12.93-acre Tassajara Highlands residential project, that
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
includes both the Vargas and Fredrich properties, located in the Eastern Dublin portion
of the City of Dublin. The Development Plan includes construction of up to 54 single-
family residential dwellings, internal roadways, open spaces and other related
improvements.
Applicant:
Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company, LLC
3500 Douglas Blvd., Suite 270
Roseville CA 95661
Attn: Michael O'Hara
(916) 783-2300
Project Location and Context
The project is located in the northern area of the Eastern Extended Planning area of the
City of Dublin as identified in the Dublin General Plan. More specifically, the project
site is located on the west side of Tassajara Road and east of Tassajara Creek. Moller
Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, extends through the project site at its southern
boundary.
The site consists of two separate property ownerships that comprise the Tassajara
Highlands project. The Vargas property is the northern portion of the site and contains
approximately 4.35 acres of land. The Fredrich property comprises the southern portion
of the project site and contains approximately 8.58 acres of land. As part of the
Tentative Map approval process and the filing of the Final map, the two existing parcels
will be effectively merged and re-subdivided with the recordation of the Final Map.
Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the
project site in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent
creeks.
Existing land uses adjacent to the project site includes the Tipper property to the north
(currently owned by the Singh family) that is a rural homestead. Land to the west is
within a permanent open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek.
The Dublin Ranch West development (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the
open space easement and has been approved for residential development at a mix of
densities and product types. Moller Creek flows immediately to the south of the project
site. Located to the southeast of the project site is a residential project, known as the
Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that is currently under construction by Standard Pacific
consisting of 106 single-family units. Additionally, located to the northeast of the
project site is a proposed residential project by Braddock & Logan known as Moller
Ranch. This project consists of up to 370 single-family lots.
The 4.35-acre Vargas property comprises the northern portion of the overall Tassajara
Highlands project site. The Vargas property contains one single-family dwelling and
accessory outbuildings generally along the Tassajara Road frontage. The Vargas
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
property has a gradual slope from the south to the northwest toward Tassajara Creek.
Much of the Vargas site is vacant and was previously used for animal grazing. The
Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Number for the Vargas property is 986-0004-002-01.
The 8.58-acre Fredrich property comprises the southern portion of the Tassajara
Highlands project site. This property contains one single-family dwelling and is
characterized by a moderately steep hill in the northern portion of the site. The site then
has a moderate slope to the southwest towards Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek. One
single-family dwelling has been constructed on the Fredrich property. The County
Assessors Parcel Number for the Fredrich property is 986-0004-002-03.
A number of native and ornamental trees exist on the Tassajara Highlands site.
Exhibit 3 shows the location and configuration of the Tassajara Highlands project site,
the two properties that comprise the site and existing topographic features.
Prior Environmental Review Documents
The project has been included in three previous CEQA documents, as noted below:
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (State
Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution
No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the
"Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts:
Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation,
Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils,
Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources;Visual Resources; Cultural
Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93)
for the following impacts:
Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone
service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy
uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of
the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and
concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of
visual character.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally
adequate.
Mission Peak and Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration
In 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Mission Peak and
Fallon Crossing project, which also included the 8.58-acre Fredrich property in the
analysis. In this Initial Study, this document will be referred to as the Fredrich
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. The MND was approved by the City
Council on May 16, 2006 by Resolution No. 71-06 and addressed all topics included
in the standard CEQA checklist. The Mission Peak MND analyzed the impacts of
prezoning, annexing and developing up to 103 single-family dwellings on the 67.8-
acre Mission Peak property on the east side of Tassajara Road south of Moller Creek.
The Mission Peak MND did not assume any development on the Fredrich property
as part of the analysis; however, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and EIR assumed
the ultimate development of 68 dwellings on the Fredrich site (EDSP, Appendix 4).
Vargas Property Mitigated Negative Declaration
In 2007, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 57-07 that approved a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 5-acre (gross) site Vargas property. In this
Initial Study, The Vargas MND analyzed the environmental impacts of amending
the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan at a less intense land use
density, approving a Stage 1 Development Plan and prezoning for the property,
approving a pre-annexation agreement and requesting annexation to the site to the
City of Dublin. The project included development of 33 single-family dwellings on
the site and analyzed all environmental topics included in the standard CEQA
checklist. The State Clearinghouse Number for this CEQA document is #2007032020.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Description
Overview. The proposed project includes demolishing the two existing single-family
dwellings on the site and other accessory buildings, subdividing the site into up to 54
single-family lots, two internal small private open space areas, and a large open space
area including a pathway on the western and southern sides of the site, grading of the
site, extension of utilities and constructing one dwelling on each of the lots.
The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the
project: amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD
rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development
Review (SDR) Permit, a Vesting Tentative Map.
Development Plan. The proposed development plan for the site is shown on Exhibit 4.
As shown, the main vehicular entry to the site would be at a signalized intersection
with Tassajara Road which is also the main entry to the Moller Ranch development
project to the east. Individual lots would be located off of the interior loop road, further
described in the section below.
Lot sizes for the single-family residences would generally range from a minimum of
3,670 square feet (smallest) to 6,907 square feet. All dwellings would be two stories in
height and the sizes of dwellings would also vary. On-site parking on each lot would be
provided as well as on-street and guest parking spaces. Two small private open space
areas are located within the site, one at the north end and one at the south end. A series
of storm drain bio-retention ponds, linked with a detention pond would be used on the
south side of the project site and for the purpose of detaining peak stormwater flows
from the site and filtering water prior to release into Moller Creek.
An open space buffer would also be provided along the western and southern
boundaries of the project site, between the development portions of Tassajara
Highlands and Tassajara Creek and Moller Creek. A pathway is planned to be
constructed within this buffer.
A sound barrier wall is proposed to be constructed along the Tassajara Road right-of-
way from the most northerly lot south to Private Drive B. Retaining walls south of
Private Drive B/EVAE are proposed to be constructed at various locations on the east
side of the project site adjacent to Tassajara Road. Landscaping is proposed to be
installed between the edge of Tassajara Road and the sound barrier and retaining walls.
Circulation and access. As noted above, a main east-west entry road would be
provided from Tassajara Road. This road would have a variable right-of-way width
between 74 and 80 feet. The intersection of this street and Tassajara Road is planned to
be signalized. The entry road would lead to an interior north-south looped road system
that would terminate in a cul-de-sac on the northern portion of the site. To the south,
this road would circle around a development area and reconnect with the north-south
link.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Interior roads would generally have a paved width of 28-feet that would accommodate
vehicle parking on one side of this roadway. In addition, at the northern portion of the
project site, there would be a 3-space parking area. No parking would be allowed on the
main entry road into the project site.
All project roadways would have sidewalks adjacent to travel lanes.
Landscaping. Exhibit 5 depicts the preliminary landscape plan for the project site.
Utility services. Domestic water service and sewer service would be provided by
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project developer would be required
to install mainline extension of sewer and water from the southern portion of the project
site thorough Private Drive B/EVAE into the proposed project.
Preliminary storm drainage plans include collecting storm water runoff into a series of
underground storm drain lines and transporting storm water flows in a southerly
direction into a series of stormwater bio-retention ponds and a detention pond at the
southern portion of the site. Following treatment, storm water would be metered out to
replicate the existing, predevelopment site condition. All storm water from the site
would then be transported into a new outfall for release into Moller Creek, which then
joins up with Tassajara Creek southwest of the project site. Improvements within and
immediately adjacent to Moller Creek, south of the project site, include a culvert and
related grading, and are not included in the Tassajara Highlands project. Moller Creek
improvements are a separate project with environmental impacts analyzed in a separate
Supplemental EIR (Moller Ranch/Moller Creek Culvert Replacement Project SEIR, SCH
# 200502146, certified by the Dublin City Council on December 18, 2012).
Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the site to allow construction of the
residential areas, roadways and the bio-retention/detention ponds, which would
partially be located on the project site. The grading concept would be to reduce the
height of the existing hill feature and use the earthen material to fill other, flatter
portion of the site. The preliminary grading plan indicates approximately 64,000 cubic
yards of material would be hauled off of the site. This includes approximately 5,000
cubic yards of material that would be removed to create the bio-retention and storm
drain detention basins. No destination for the material has been identified, but will be
prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City. Erosion controls would be
implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality
Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality.
A number of retaining walls are proposed to be constructed on the site, ranging in
height from approximately 1 foot to 8 feet.
Biological and hydrological resources. The applicant prepared an Addendum to the
2012 Biological Resources Analysis for the Tassajara Highlands Residential
Development Project (May 2014). This document provides the current status of
biological surveys for the site, including a wetland delineation verified by the USACE
July 26, 2013, provides a status report on the regulatory permitting, and identifies
avoidance and minimization measures (such as pre-construction surveys) in compliance
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
with CEQA mitigation measures. The applicant will remove any trees or out-buildings
slated for removal during the biological window when potential special-status roosting
bats are not present. This proactive avoidance measure is included in the Vargas MND
and will also serve to remove trees before the bird nesting period.
Inclusionary housing. The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that
12.5% of a project's dwelling units must be affordable to very low, low and moderate
income households. Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of
inclusionary units and/or paying an in-lieu fee to the City, or some other form of
compliance subject to approval by the City.
Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required from the
City of Dublin to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail
below.
General Plan Amendment
The City of Dublin General Plan Designates the Tassajara Highlands site as a mix of
Medium Density Residential on the Vargas property and a combination of
Medium/High Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial on the Fredrich
property. The proposed General Plan land use designations would be a combination
of Medium Density Residential and Open Space.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Amendment
Similar to the requested General Plan Amendment, land use designations on the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land Use Maps would be changed from Medium
Density Residential, Medium/High Density Residential and Neighborhood
Commercial to a combination of Medium Density Residential and Open Space.
PD rezoning with related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan.
Previously approved Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans would be replaced by
the proposed Development Plan shown on Exhibit 4. A rezoning is being considered
to ensure consistency with the requested General Plan and Specific Plan
Amendments.
Vesting Tentative Map. A Vesting Tentative Tract Map is proposed to subdivide the
site into single-family lots, roads and other facilities.
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
S A N P A B L 0
q Martinez 4
BAY
San 80 Concord
Rafael 6w
Richmond
580
Mill 101
Valley Walnut
24 Creek
Berkeley
680
0
Oakland
580
San Francisco gid�@aa
S A N San
Leandro
DUBLIN
F R A N CISCO N0
seo
Daly
City Livermore
B A Y
t 1 101
Hayward Pleasanton
�. 92
280
San Mateo Fremont
n �
t Newark
O Redwood
City
Half 84
Moon
Bay Palo
(0 Alto
F, ^' 880
9 Y
h
85 101
680
9
d 280 Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
ro
e
<" San
Jose 101
n
m
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT 0 z a s a 10 miles
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT SITE �-
STA C-
OUN ,--
CpN RA%oA
COLJ
ALA MED
a
0
m
a�
OG/e,, Drive
O
a Central Parkwa
T
0
Dublin Blvd
6
0
U
2 1-580
m
m
a
P\LaP �
� � o
rn� a
� = W
�n
Exhibit 2
CITY OF DUBLIN
TASSAJARA HIGHLANDS PROJECT SITE CONTEXT
INITIAL STUDY
,t�
c ?
P�°
a
N
e�
W
X
x cc
CL
L �*
t'
� "• . �� _� ,"x �„�'� as � x
R
t
1 �4 may}
t
a
w
Ar .
r.
� a
t
r �
a-t w 44
IL
iw� LL
LIJ
cn
f � m
fah c J
/7 LU
%� �• c Z
a 0 IL
CL
Y
a p1p w 0 W
W
;a
I
j I
,�.
e
w
1 � � gg d.a
F
r #9
�k I
I
a
I`1
m
o Mme,
e
9
Pa�&
CA aa I r
k
i
\
r.
1
U
w
\ O
cc
CL
cn
o
Z
cc
ea
o
A P,
a Z _
C3 <
F-
U o <
W
j H N H
O(j) z
Z
Q
J
t CL
W
L Cl)
UJ
LU� E
R a53 i t J' �.✓.�� as ..�
4 M 1
4
/, � j � � ,ice "�i«.. •� N �� X ::, Y � � » �;}'.
iI + `
rn M d tX �
P Y
i d
l
of 1dtva' 'WAY
" x — W
Cl
Z 0
� J 2
9
LL
o a
cn a
1. Project description: Development of the Tassajara Highlands site with up
to 54 single-family residences, open spaces and roads.
The project includes demolition of existing structures,
re-grading of the site, installation of retaining walls
and construction of a series of water quality ponds
and a detention basin. Requested land use
entitlements include amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a PD rezoning with
related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review (SDR) and a Vesting Tentative
Map
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
3. Contact persons: Michael A Porto
Consulting Planner
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: Generally located on the west side of Tassajara Road
and east of Tassajara Creek. Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 986-0004-002-01 & -03
5. Project sponsor: Tim Lewis Communities and STL Company, LLC
6. General Plan designation: Existing:
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Proposed:
Medium Density Residential
Open Space
7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development
8. Other public agency required approvals:
• Approval of an Affordable Housing Agreement (City of Dublin);
• 1602/3 Streambed Alteration Permit (California Department of Fish
and Game, possible);
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• State Incidental Take Permit (California Department of Fish and
Game, possible);
• Section 404 Permit including a Section 7 consultation (under the
Endangered Species Act) from the United States Department of Fish
and Wildlife (United States Army Corps of Engineers, possible);
• Section 401 Clean Water Certification (San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board, possible);
• Notice of Intent (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board);
• Issuance of demolition, building and grading permits (City of
Dublin); and
• Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
_ Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
Resources
Hazards and - Hydrology/Water _ Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/
Housing
-- Public Services _ Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
--
Utilities/Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the
City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts.
_I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative
Declaration will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in
this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in
an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as
significant and unavoidable and for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin
Environmental Impact Report, the 2006 Mission Peak Properties/Fallon Crossing
MND and the 2007 Vargas Property MND will be prepared.
_I find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards,
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project.
Signature: `,1 Date:
Printed Name. J For:
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). The checklist will include a response
"no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should
identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures
which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances,
etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist)
Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No New
following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
1.Aesthetics. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X
vista? (Source: 2,3,4,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including X
but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 2,3,4,6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character X
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 2,3,4,6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?(Source: 6)
2.Agricultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to a non-
agricultural use? (Source: 2,6)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2,6)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which,due to their location or nature,could
result in conversion of farmland to a non- X
agricultural use? (Source: 2,6)
3.Air Quality(Where available,the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management district may be relied on to make
the following determinations). Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X
applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2,7)
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? (Source: 2,7)
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
(2,3,4,7)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations? (Source: 2,6)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X
number of people?(Source: 6)
4.Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly
through habitat modifications,on any species X
identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special
status species in local or regional plans,policies
or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?(Source: 2,3,4,7)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,policies or
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act(including but not limited to
marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption or
other means?
(Source: Source: 2,3,4,7)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 3,4,7)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X
protecting biological resources,such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 1,7)
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other approved local, X
regional or state habitat conservation plan?
(Source: 1,7)
5.Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in X
Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3,4,7)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3,7)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X
paleontological resource,site or unique geologic
feature?(Source: 2,3,7)
d) Disturb any human remains,including those X
interred outside of a formal cemetery?(6,7)
6.Geology and Soils. Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,including the risk of
loss,injury,or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated
on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 2,
3,4,7)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2,6) X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X
liquefaction? (2,3,4,7)
iv) Landslides? (2,3,4,7) X
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source: 2,3,6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable,or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in on- X
or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards
(Source: 2,3,4,7)
d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property? X
(Source: 2,3,4,7)
City of Dublin Page 23
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available X
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 1,2)
7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,use or
disposal of hazardous materials X
(Source: 3,4)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Source: 3,4)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials or acutely hazardous materials, X
substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3,4)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and,as a result, X
would it create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment? (Source: 7)
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted
within two miles of a public airport of public use
airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?(Source: 7)
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, X
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
(Source: 7)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? X
(Source: 7)
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, X
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1,2,4,5)
8.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2,5 ) X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g. the production rate of existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted?(2)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X
the site or area,including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?(Source: 2,5,6)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X
the site or areas,including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river,or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5,6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Source: 5)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
(Source: 3,5)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X
delineation map?(Source: 7)
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood X
flows?(Source: 7)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss,injury,and death involving flooding, X
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? (7)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (5) X
9.Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
(Source: 1,2,3,4,6)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project(including but not limited to the X
general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan? X
(1,2)
10.Mineral Resources. Would the project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the X
region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1,
2)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X
or other land use plan?(Source:1,2)
11.Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X
levels in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance,or
applicable standards of other agencies? (2,3,4)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X
levels?(Source: 2,3,4)
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (2,3,4)
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (2,3,4)
e) For a project located within an airport land use X
plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport,would the project expose people residing
or working n the project area to excessive noise
levels? (2, 3,4)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X
airstrip,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Source: 7)
12.Population and Housing. Would the project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X
either directly or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (Source: 1,2,3,4)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement X
housing elsewhere?(6)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of X
housing elsewhere?(Source: 6)
13.Public Services. Would the proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities,need for new or physically altered
government facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service rations,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 5)
Fire protection X
Police protection X
Schools X
Parks X
Other public facilities X
Solid Waste X
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study(Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
14.Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing X
neighborhood and regional parks or recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated (Source: 2,3,4)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or X
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 2,5)
15.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e.result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the
volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion
at intersections)?(2,3,4)
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a X
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2,3,4)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(2,3,4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm X
equipment? (5)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6) X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (6) X
g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs X
supporting alternative transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities)
(1,2)
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
16.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2,3,4,5)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water X
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion
of existing facilities,the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
(2,3)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm X
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?(3,4,5)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources,or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?(5)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?(5)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (5)
g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X
regulations related to solid waste?(5)
17.Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X
the quality of the environment,substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number of or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Potentially Less Than Less than No New
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
b) Does the project have impacts that are X
individually limited,but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable
future projects).
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human X
beings,either directly or indirectly?
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan SEIR
3 Fredrich MND
4 Vargas MND
5. Discussion with City staff or service provider
6. Site Visit
7. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report(State
Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was
certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR,
the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including
but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural
gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to
this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area.
Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential
impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial StudyfTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
This Initial Study relies on two other adopted Mitigated Negative Declarations for the
subject properties, as follows:
• Mission Peak/Fallon Crossing Mitigated Negative Declaration,
adopted by City Council Resolution No. 71-06 on May 16, 2006
("Fredrich Project MND.")
• Vargas Project Mitigated Negative Declaration, adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 57-07 on May 1, 2007 (Vargas Project MND).
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of
the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR the Mission Peak MND
or the Vargas Project MND and which would require additional environmental review.
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The project is set in an existing rural area of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to
urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993.
The project site is characterized by moderate to steep sloping hill in the south-central
portion of the site that slopes to the north and west towards Tassajara Creek. Tassajara
Road forms the easterly boundary of the site and Moller Creek flows just south of the
site.
Two existing dwellings and a number of agricultural outbuildings are located on the
project site. A number of trees are also present on the site.
Surrounding land uses include the Tipper property to the north (currently owned by
the Singh family) that is a rural homestead. Land to the west is within a permanent
open space easement area within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek. The Dublin Ranch
West site (also known as the Wallis Ranch) lies west of the open space easement and has
been approved for residential development at a mix of densities and product types.
Moller Creek flows immediately to the south of the project site. Located to the east of
the project site is a residential project, known as the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak that
is currently under construction by Standard Pacific consisting of 106 single-family units.
As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Major light
sources include house and security lighting associated with the two existing residences.
Limited lighting exists to the east within the Fallon Crossing/Mission Peak
development, primarily security lighting.
Regulatory framework
Alameda Countv Scenic Route Element
In May, 1966, Alameda County adopted a Scenic Route Element of the County General
Plan. The Element identifies Tassajara Road as a Major Rural Road. The County's
General Plan Element has been incorporated by reference into the City of Dublin
General Plan.
The Scenic Route Element contains the following principles that apply to scenic route
rights-of-way:
• Design scenic routes to minimize grading in rights-of-way;
• Landscape rights-of-way of existing and proposed routes;
• Utilize scenic route identification signs.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Dublin General Plan. The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended
Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site
grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing
Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General
Plan and Specific Plan policies."
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 7,200 acres of
land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and
programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of
ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development.
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin
adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. This document identifies the site as
lying within Zone 5, the Fallon Village Open Space area. This corridor area is defined
primarily by lands adjacent to public rights-of-way, which should be park, rural
residential, open slopes or riparian drainage areas.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project.
These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/13) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive
natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of hillsides (IM 3.8/1)) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading,
use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction,
using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside
to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality
of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north
and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in
locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a
ridgetop.
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of
watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure
protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or
disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual
access to stream corridors.
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/1)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
Vargas Project MND
• Mitigation Measure 1 requires submittal of a visual survey and analysis with
future Stage 2 Planned Development applications to ensure that future
developments on this site comply with the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor
Policies; that views of the Tassajara Creek bank are protected; and, that
distinctive natural features on the site will be visible, once development is
complete.
• Mitigation Measure 2 requires that future developments retain as much of the
existing topographic pattern as possible.
No new aesthetic impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the Mission Peak
MND.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Vargas Project MND.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. The Eastern
Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/1), development on
the project area [i.e. the Eastern Dublin planning area] will alter the character of
existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines). Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
impact to a less-than-significant impact. This measure requires the City to
complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. This
has been completed.
The proposed project would include lowering the height of the existing small hill
on the site and raising the topographic grades of the northern and western
portions of the site to construct project improvements. The portion of the site
closest to Tassajara Creek would not be graded and would remain in its existing
natural area. The Tassajara Road frontage of the project site would be changed
from a generally undeveloped, natural area to a more urban streetscape, typical
of other housing developments south of the site along Tassajara Road. The
proposed streetscape appearance would include street trees, other ornamental
plantings and a noise barrier wall. The streetscape appearance would be similar
to other residential subdivisions located further south on Tassajara Road in the
Eastern Dublin area and generally consistent with previous development
approvals on the project site. This developed condition of the site was envisioned
in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Applicable mitigation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, the visual policies contained in the EDSP and Vargas
project MND mitigation measures will apply to this project and no new or more
severe significant impacts would occur.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including those within state scenic highway? No
New Impact. The project site has extensive frontage along Tassajara Road, a
County and City-designated scenic highway. The project site adjacent to
Tassajara Road consists of natural and ornamental landscaping with no
significant stands of native trees, significant rock outcrops or other significant
scenic resources. Two single-family dwellings and a number of outbuildings
have also been constructed o the site. The appearance of the project frontage is
proposed to change from a largely natural condition to a more urban
environment with the addition of ornamental trees and landscaping and a noise
barrier wall. Proposed improvements adjacent along Tassajara Road have been
anticipated in the Mission Peak MND and Vargas MND as well as the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment to add new residential, commercial
and similar urban uses in the then-vacant project area would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact to the Eastern Dublin planning area (see
EDSP Impact 3.8/B), including the Tassajara Highlands property. Mitigation
measures have been included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize hillside
grading, although some amount of hillside grading would likely be needed to
accommodate proposed development improvements. The project developer will
also be required to comply with hillside grading requirements contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the visual effects of grading. No new or more
significant severe impacts would occur with respect to damage to scenic
resources than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional review is
required.
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New
Impact. The proposed project includes the consideration of a development plan
on the Vargas and Fredrich properties. Aesthetic impacts would include
disturbance of existing vegetation and paving of undeveloped land to create
project roadways, grading of the area to create development areas and removal
of existing single-family residences and outbuildings on the site. The Eastern
Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and
aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan:
Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter
the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact
(Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site
which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..."). Both the
approved and current development plans on the project site would adhere to this
mitigation measure by preserving on-site natural features (Moller Creek and
adjacent ridge-tops). However the Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with
adherence to this mitigation, alteration of rural and open space on the project site
would remain a potentially significant impact.
A potential visual impact would be grading and recontouring of the existing
hillside in the approximate center of the site which would be required to
facilitate development on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR addresses this
impact and included mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified
in this Initial Study with respect to degradation of the visual character of the site
and no further review is required.
d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The project site contains minimal light
sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light
sources in the form of streetlights along the proposed roadway as well as new
housing and yard lights. Properties adjacent to the project to the north and east
(Tipper and Moller Ranch) are primarily rural and/or contain special-status
biological wildlife species. City of Dublin development requirements will be
imposed as part of the normal and customary review process to restrict spillover
of unwanted light off of the project site. No new or more severe significant
impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously
analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional review is required.
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the project site as a combination of 'locally important
farmland" and "other lands," which lie adjacent to Tassajara Creek (see EDSP Figure
3.1-B). The Vargas MND states that this property was used for cattle grazing prior to the
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
1960's but this activity ceased when the residential dwelling was constructed during
this time period. Grazing also likely occurred on the Fredrich property as well, but has
also ceased. No other agricultural operations have been observed on the project site.
Figure 3.1-C contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR notes that a 5-acre portion of the
Vargas property was under a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement in 1993, as
of the date of EIR publication. The EIR also stated that the Contract was non-renewed
and this contract has since expired. No other Williamson Act contracted properties exist
on the site.
A number of non-native trees exist on the site which have been planted as landscaping
for existing residences. No forests or major stands of trees have been observed on the
site, including Heritage Trees as defined in the Dublin Municipal Code (reference:
"Heritage Tree Letter, Vargas/Fredrich Property, Dublin CA" by HortScience, dated
July 3, 2014).
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related
to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural
uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin
and the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local
Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan.
This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of
Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative
loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect
impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also
identified as an insignificant impact.
Fredrich Project MND. No impact to agricultural resources were identified in this
document.
Vargas Project MND. Agricultural resource were found to be less-than-significant in the
Vargas MND.
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No New Impact. No
significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in
previous CEQA documents listed above. No new conditions have been identified
in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-
agricultural use and residential development is proposed as assumed in the
EDEIR. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than were
analyzed in previous CEQA documents for this site and additional analysis is not
required.
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss of
agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1/F).
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No
New Impact. The City of Dublin has previously zoned the project site for
residential uses. No Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are
any agricultural operations on-going. No new or more severe significant impacts
would result than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for
the site. No additional analysis is required.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No
Impact. No forest land exists on the project site and no impact would result with
respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required.
e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to
a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin
is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
Previous CEQA Documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11/1.0 reduced impacts related to emission of construction
generated dust to a less-than-significant level by requiring construction projects
to water graded areas in the late morning and end of the day, cleanup mud and
dust onto adjacent streets on a daily basis, covering of haul trucks, avoiding
unnecessary idling of construction equipment, revegetating graded areas and
similar measures.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Fassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures.
Many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.
Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich MND identified three supplemental air quality
mitigation measures in addition to EDSP mitigation measures:
• Mitigation Measure 14 required contractors to water or cover stockpiles of
debris, soil, sand or other materials that could be blown by the wind.
• Mitigation Measure 15 required contractors to sweep daily (preferably with
water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas of
construction sites
• Mitigation Measure 16 required contractors to install sandbags or other erosion
control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND included Mitigation Measures 14 through 16 as
contained in the Fredrich MND.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures
related to air quality.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New
Impact. The amount of residential development proposed on the Tassajara
Highlands site would be less than previously considered and approved by the City
of Dublin. The current project includes up to 54 single-family dwellings. Previous
CEQA documents and land use approvals included the development of up to 68
dwellings on the Fredrich property and 33 dwellings on the Vargas property for a
total of up to 101 dwellings. Thus, the current project would represent a reduction
of up to 47 dwellings from currently approved plans. The number of approved
dwellings, 101 dwellings, was used in the preparation of the existing Regional
Clean Air Plan. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project
would not represent a substantial dwelling unit increase that would conflict with
or obstruct the regional clean air plan. No new or more severe significant impacts
would result than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No
additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Related Criteria Air Pollutant Precursor Screening Level Sizes"
Qattp://www.baagmd.gov/-/media/Files/Plannin %20ar1d (,20Research/CEQA
/Draft BAAOMD CEQA Guidelines May 2010 Final ashx) establish the
minimum residential project sizes in terms of dwelling units that, below which, no
air quality impacts would occur. For single-family dwellings, the following
dwelling unit sizes are included in the screening level.
• Operation Criteria (NOX): 325 single-family dwellings
• GHG Screening: 56 single-family dwellings
a Construction (ROG): 114 single-family dwellings
Since the proposed project would contain 54 dwellings, below all of the District's
air quality screening levels, there would be no supplemental impact. There would
be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to violation of air
quality standards than has been previously analyzed. No additional review is
required.
The proposed Tassajara Highlands project would continue to contribute to the
cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, construction equipment emissions,
mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions, but to a somewhat lesser
degree than previously analyzed due to fewer dwellings proposed. These impact
(Impacts (IM/3.11/A, B,C and E contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR) were was
found to be significant and unavoidable when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
was approved.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact.
The number of dwelling units included in the Tassajara Highlands fall below the
minimum screening thresholds for a significant air quality impact on a project and
cumulative basis and is less than half of the units considered in prior CEQA
reviews. The number of build-out dwelling units would also be less than currently
included in the Regional Clean Air Plan. So there would be no new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to cumulative air quality impacts than have been
previously analyzed and no additional review is needed.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial significant pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors? No New Impact. No sensitive receptors, including but not
limited to schools or hospitals, exist or are planned within or adjacent to the
project area, so no impacts would result. Similarly, the site is not located adjacent
to any freeways or major highway corridors that would release significant air
emissions.
Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses uses, no
objectionable odors would be created. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified this
impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact which could not be mitigated
to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source emissions needed to meet
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
the insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a
Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. No new severe significant
impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents ad no additional analysis is needed.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The project site is located east of Tassajara Creek with Moller Creek, a tributary of
Tassajara Creek, flowing south of the site in a generally northeast-southwest direction
south of the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the biological character of the Tassajara Highlands
site as "ruderal field" which contains a mix of native and non-native species, primarily
weedy species such as thistles, mustards and similar grasses (see EDSP EIR Figure 3.7-
A). Non-native, introduced trees and shrubs have been planted on the site as part of
existing residences. Based on a more recent biological analysis of the site ('Biological
Resources Analysis Report Addendum for the Tassajara Highlands residential
Development Project" prepared by Marylee Guinon LLC and Olberding Environmental
Inc, dated May 2014.) This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial
Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department
during normal business hours.). The May 2014 biological report also notes that in
addition to ruderal grassland, the site contains creek channel and valley foothill
vegetation types. The report notes that 1.47 acres of the site have been developed with
dwellings, outbuildings and access roads.
The western and southern boundaries of the site are bordered by Tassajara Creek(west)
and Moller Creek (south). These area support riparian habitat, including but not limited
to stand of arroyo willows and similar plants.
Small area of wetlands and Waters of the US were identified on the Vargas property in
previous CEQA documents, including 0.483 acre of potential jurisdictional wetlands.
Existing grassland habitat on the site provides suitable habitat for a range of
amphibians, reptiles birds and mammals, although the quality of habitat has been
degraded by existing housing on the site, the presence of outbuildings and previous
cultivation of portions of the site. A number of these species are considered special-
status, protected species.
An analysis of existing trees on the site were conducted by a Hortscience dated January
2007 ("Updated Tree Report, Vargas/Fredrich Property. Dublin CA, January 2007." A
supplemental letter from Hortscience was submitted on July 3, 2014. These reports are
hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the
Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The
Hortscience arborist report found sixty (60) trees on the site, including a mix of non-
native, introduced trees near residences and a stand of native oak trees near Tassajara
Creek.
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Regulatory framework
California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as
habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under
Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one
or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river,
stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or
bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other
material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a
river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the
California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least
periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish
or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow
that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the
term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface
flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if
they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife.
Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian
vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is
dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation
also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting
authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the
United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as
"waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the
Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies
to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A
summary of this definition of "waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters
used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as
intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5)
tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters.
Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act,
"navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the
U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above.
The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are
as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the
baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal
waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of
adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland.
Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be
jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man-
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of
naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities.
Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated
wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material
disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas.
In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of
Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159
(2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or
groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.",
and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341)
requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may
result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a
certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if
appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over
the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that
the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality
standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain
to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water
quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act
(FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any
action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed
or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal
agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed
plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under
Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with
proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding
from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate
species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit.
The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant
Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in
1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for
plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with
the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The
State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as
threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal
framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant
and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat
Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information
on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural
communities. During the CEQA review process, CDFW is given the opportunity to
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals.
East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East
Alameda County Conservation Strategy ("Conservation Strategy") Study Area. The
Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect,
enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving
and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from
infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the
Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of
biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and
environmental permitting.
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. The Eastern Dublin
Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1996
as an implementation program required by the Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide more
detailed requirements relating to hydrologic and biological conditions for individual
development projects proposed adjacent to Tassajara Creek and its tributaries,
specifically to ensure that Tassajara Creek restoration policies and programs contained
in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan are fully implemented.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) but not to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the tri-colored
blackbird (IM 3.7/1) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas.
These measures also apply to burrowing owl and badger species.
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of
Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of
impacted habitat areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle
foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin
planning area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other
raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure
requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/20.0, 27.0 reduced impacts related to American badger
(IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates a
minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting sites and American
badger breeding sites during the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard.
Fredrich Project MND. This document includes the following applicable mitigation
measures:
• Mitigation Measure 17 required the completion of spring surveys for big tar
plant, large-flowered fiddleneck, diamond petaled California poppy, Congdon s
tarplant and round-leaved filaree prior to start of grading or construction.
Results of the surveys shall be provided to the City and California Department of
Fish & Wildlife prior to construction. If these species are found, they shall be
protected in place or safely relocated.
• Mitigation Measure 18 required that, if required by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service or the California Department of Fish and Game, surveys for California
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Tiger Salamander, red-legged frog and western pond turtle shall be conducted at
least 60 days prior to start of construction.
• Mitigation Measure 19 required that if California tiger salamander species are
found on the site, a management plan shall be prepared and approved by
appropriate resources regulatory agencies to protect these species.
• Mitigation Measure 20 required the installation of a permanent herpetological
fence or barrier around the north, east and southern area of the site.
• Mitigation Measure 21 required California tiger salamander larval surveys be
conducted in the unnamed tributary for the proposed storm drain outfall to
determine the presence or absence of CTS larvae. If found, a CTS management
plan shall include methods to protect CTA at the outfall location.
• Mitigation Measure 22 required completion of a pre-construction survey for
nesting raptors prior to commencement of grading within 100 feet of a known
nesting tree. Vegetation and tree removal shall be conducted outside of the
raptor breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 23 required completion of a pre-construction survey for
California horned lark and other ground-nesting birds prior to grading or
construction. If these species are found, a protective buffer shall be placed
around the nesting area until the young have fledged.
• Mitigation Measure 24 required completion of a pre-construction survey for
burrowing owls prior to grading or construction between September 31 and
January 31. If found, construction shall be limited within 150 feet of any
occupied nest. Owls may be removed from the site with necessary permits
issued by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.
• Mitigation Measure 25 required a pre-construction survey during the nesting
season for burrowing owl and, if found, a minimum 250-foot wide buffer shall
be maintained around active nests during the breeding season.
• Mitigation Measure 26 required that if destruction of occupied burrowing owl
nests are proposed, a the developer shall prepare a strategy to replace burrows
by enhancing existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on
protected lands. The plan shall be approved by the California Department of
Fish & Wildlife.
• Mitigation Measure 30 required that all protection measures required by the
California Department of Fish & Wildlife and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are
implemented and maintained.
• Mitigation Measure 31 required all construction personnel receive an
education training program regarding special-status species and protection
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 33 required all grading activity to occur during the dry
season to the extent practical.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 34 required that any riparian habitat removed to be
replaced by replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio subject to the approval
of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife. As part of this measure, a
Riparian Habitat Management Plan shall be prepared, consistent with the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Management Plan and Dublin Ranch
Tassajara Creek management Plan.
• Mitigation Measure 35 required the project developer to provide proof that all
necessary permits and approvals have been obtained from necessary
biological regulatory agencies prior to issuance of any City permits.
• Mitigation Measure 36 required the project to comply with the Eastern Dublin
San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan.
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas project MND contains the following mitigation
measures:
• Mitigation Measure 7 required a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors
prior to start of grading operations within 100 feet of any known trees with
nests. If active nests are found, a buffer shall be established around the tree
between January 1 and August 1, or until the young have fledged. Removal of
vegetation with a know raptor nest shall occur during the non-nesting season.
• Mitigation Measure 8 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for
Red-legged frog no more than 60 days prior to construction or grading.
Should this species be identified, a qualified biologist shall work with
appropriate regulatory agencies to determine additional measures to avoid
impacts to this specie.
• Mitigation Measure 9 required the completion of a pre-construction survey for
California Tiger Salamander no more than 60 days prior to construction or
grading. Should this species be identified, a qualified biologist shall work
with appropriate regulatory agencies to determine additional measures to
avoid impacts to this specie.
• Mitigation Measure 10 required that if California Tiger Salamander are found
on the site, a California Tiger Salamander management plan is to be prepared
and approved by appropriate biological regulatory agencies prior to start of
construction. At minimum, the management plan shall include installation of
barrier fences, a trapping and relocation plan, on-site presence of a qualified
biologist during construction and limiting grading and vegetation clearance
within a 750-foot radius of California Tiger Salamander breeding and
migration areas.
• Mitigation Measure 11 required the installation of a permanent herpetological
fence or barrier around the north, east and southern area of the residential
portion of the site.
• Mitigation Measure 12 required compliance with the Eastern Dublin San
Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan.
• Mitigation Measure 13 required the completion of a pre-construction survey
for Southwestern pond turtle along the Tassajara Creek corridor. If found on
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
site, turtles shall be relocated by a qualified biologist and the site blocked from
future occupancy by turtles.
• Mitigation Measure 14 required the completion of a pre-construction survey
for burrowing owls if ground disturbance is to occur between September 1
and January 31. If no overwintering birds are present, burrows may be
removed prior to construction. If owls must be removed during this period
passive relocation measures shall be prepared and implemented based on
current biological regulatory guidelines prior to construction.
• Mitigation Measure 15 required that if construction is scheduled during the
burrowing owl nesting season (Feb. 1 —Sept. 1), a pre-construction survey
shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance. A minimum
250-foot wide buffer shall be maintained during the breeding season around
active nests to avoid direct take of individuals.
• Mitigation Measure 16 required that if occupied owl burrows are destroyed
either during the breeding or non-breeding season, a strategy shall be
developed and implemented to replace such destroyed burrows by enhancing
existing burrows or creating artificial burrows at a 2:1 ratio on nearby lands
and shall include permanent protection of a minimum of 6.5 acres of
burrowing owl habitat per pair or unpaired resident owls agencies to
determine additional measures to avoid impacts to this specie.
• Mitigation Measure 17 required the completion of a pre-construction surveys
for special-status plant species prior to ground disturbance. Any rare plants
shall be plotted and biological regulatory agencies notified of their presence.
Special-status plants shall be protected from site construction or relocated to
an alternative site as required by the resource agency.
• Mitigation Measure 18 required the approval of a formal wetland delineation
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to issuance of building permits
or a grading permit.
• Mitigation Measure 19 required the project developer to retain a qualified
biologist to develop a plant to mitigate impacts to 0.397 acre of wetlands at a
2:1 ratio and 0.086 acre of waters of the United States at a 1:1 ratio.
Appropriate methods of mitigation include creation of replacement wetlands
or other methods as approved by the Corps of Engineers.
• Mitigation Measure 20 required that construction and grading activities
related to the trail system and grading activities located within the 100 foot
creek setback shall be protected during construction of the trail and water
quality pond and shall not occur during the wet season (Oct. 1-April 15).
• Mitigation Measure 21 required that prior to issuance of a building or grading
permit, a creek and riparian resources protection plan shall be prepared for
construction of a trail and water quality pond. At minimum, the plan shall
include construction fencing, project schedule and erosion control measures.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource
mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents prepared for the site.
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR, Vargas and Fredrich MNDs all
document the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species on the
project site. Numerous mitigation measures are included in these various
documents to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special-status species
to a less-than significant level. These are listed above. As noted above, the
project site was analyzed in multiple previous CEQA documents, each with
slightly different mitigation requirements. To provide a consistent method of
monitoring biological mitigation measures, a recommended condition of
project approval is to have a qualified biologist prepare a Comprehensive
Biological Resources Management Plan to compile the various biological
mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents in a logical
manner. Completion of this Plan, prior to issuance of a grading permit, will
ensure that all previous applicable measures are logically complied to eliminate
overlap and duplication and be monitored at the appropriate stage of the
proposed project. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with
respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have
been analyzed in the three previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis
is required.
The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or
degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a
significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
Mo New Impact. Wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified
on the project site and a wetland delineation was approved by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers on July 26, 2013. An application for a water quality
certification has been submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
was submitted in early 2014 and approval is pending. Also, a Streambed
Alteration Agreement application has been filed with the California Department
of Fish & Wildlife and approval is pending.
Mitigation Measures have been included in the previously adopted CEQA
documents to reduce such impacts to a less-than-significant level. The
Comprehensive Biological Resources Management Plan shall also address
impacts and previous mitigation measures addressing riparian habitat and
wetlands. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur than have
been previously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is
required.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. Mitigation
measures contained in previous CEQA documents prepared to analyze previous
development applications on the site contain mitigation measures that reduced
this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, since there have been
several previous CEQA documents adopted and/or certified for the site, a
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
recommended condition of project approval will require that adopted mitigation
measures from previous CEQA documents dealing with interference of fish or
wildlife movement be included in the Comprehensive Biological Resources
Management Plan to eliminate duplication and overlap. No new or more severe
significant impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with
respect to potential interference with fish or wildlife movement and no
additional analysis is required.
e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect native
oak trees and other trees species on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage
Tree status to any oak, bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree
with a main trunk of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at
fifty-two inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an
approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development
review, or subdivision map. The HortScience arborist report did not identify the
presence of any heritage trees on the site.
The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy
(EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as
guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private
development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The
Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation
for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and
other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan
nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to
provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure
that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. No HCP or NCCP was
identified in the prior CEQA documents and none applies at present. There would
therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic
than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2002 Transit Center EIR.
No new mitigation measures are required.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Potentially historic structures. Two single-family dwellings exist on the site, which appear
to date from the early to mid-1960's. The dwellings are typical of mid-century modern
design and construction and do not qualify as unique historic structures. A number of
smaller agricultural outbuildings have also been built on the site and are of the same
age as the primary dwellings. Similar to the primary dwellings, none of these buildings
are considered historic. The confirmation of no historic status for the Vargas house was
confirmed by a cultural resource investigation of the Vargas property by the firm of
Basin Research Associates dated July 2006 and included in the Vargas MND document.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project
site.
Underground cultural resources. The Basin Research Associates cultural survey in 2006
did not identify the presence of underground cultural resources on the Vargas property
portion of the site.
A cultural resources records search was conducted by the Northwest Information
Center for the realignment of Tassajara Road and Fallon Road adjacent to the Fredrich
property in 2002. No significant resources were identified in the vicinity of this Eastern
Dublin, although the records search noted the presence of other significant resources
adjacent to Tassajara Creek to the south, near the I-580 freeway. These resources are not
located on the project site.
Native American resources. The Native American Heritage Commission review of the
Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources
within the project area. No former Native American villages, traditional use of the area
or contemporary use of the area have been identified on or adjacent to the project site.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less-than-
significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or
hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits,
recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and
development of a site-specific protection program for prehistoric sites.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unidentified prehistoric resources (IM 3.913) to a less-than-
significant level.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or
destruction of identified historic resources (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant
level. These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for
individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation
of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and
development of preservation programs for significant resources.
Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich MND referenced previous cultural resource impacts
and mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND contained one mitigation measure that reduced
cultural resources on the Vargas site to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
30 required implementation of a contingency plan if an unrecorded resource is found
during project construction. Work shall be halted in the vicinity of the site until a
qualified archeologist can inspect the find and, if necessary, develop and implement a
testing and recovery plan.
The proposed project will be required to comply with the above cultural resource
mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. No
historic resources have been identified in the project area in both the Eastern
Dublin EIR and the supplemental cultural resources survey completed for the
Vargas property by Basin Research Associates in July 2006. Basin staff found that
the existing dwellings on the Vargas property did not qualify for inclusion on the
California Register of Historic Places and were therefore, not considered historic
resources. The existing dwelling on the Fredrich property is of approximately the
same age and similarly does not qualify as a significant resource. No new or
more severe supplemental impacts have therefore been identified for the
proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents and no
additional analysis is required.
b,c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological
resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified a remote but
potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site
grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or
paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR
categorized these resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential
pre-historic sites were identified by the EIR near the Tassajara Highlands site .
The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or
altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through
3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 —3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological
resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a
protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5-0 and 3.9/6.Q,
described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any
previously unidentified pre-historic or historic resources and would apply to the
project as may be appropriate.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25)
requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and
determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during
grading and construction.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to cultural
resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in other
CEQA documents for the project area and no additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No
New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, the Fredrich MND and the Vargas MND reduced impacts to
human remains to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to cultural impacts are anticipated beyond those
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Geology and soils. This section is based on a preliminary geotechnical investigation
completed by ENGEO on July 14, 2006 ("Preliminary Geological and Geotechnical
Findings, Fredrich and Vargas Properties") that was updated by ENGEO in July 2012
("Geotechnic Update.") These reports are hereby incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study. The reports are available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours.
Landslide potential. The ENGEO report, as updated in 2012, identified that no historic
landslides have been mapped on the project site or were observed on the site by
ENGEO professional staff.
Seismic hazard. The project area does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence
earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville
Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity,
consistent with all of the Bay area.
Tsunami and seiche hazards. The ENGEO reports found that the risk of damage to future
improvements on the site from a tsunami or seiche is low.
Previous CEOA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General
Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/13) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure
facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope
stability (IM 3.6/1) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate
formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical
reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on
downslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable
slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage
improvements.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope
stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include
developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate
cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building
codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and
minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas
and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
Fredrich Project MND. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures were identified
in this MND.
Vargas Project MND. This document contains Mitigation Measure 23, that required
removal of unstable fill material from portion of the Vargas site during site preparation
and grading as required by the project geotechnical report.
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable soil, geologic and
seismic mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss,
injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or
landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary
and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be
potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0, the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced
but not to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for
resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for
structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of ground-shaking on
proposed project improvements but not to a less-than-significant level. Impact
3.6/13 found that impacts related to seismic action in the Eastern Dublin area
could damage structures and infrastructure and would be significant and
unavoidable. This finding also applied to the proposed Tassajara Highlands
project as well.
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 23 contained in the Vargas MND by the
project developer will ensure that infrastructure facilities built on the project site
will comply with generally recognized seismic safety standards so that effects
due to ground shaking and ground failure will be less-than-significant. Overall,
no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to ground
rupture, ground shaking, ground failure or landslides than have been previously
analyzed. No additional analysis is required.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact.
Construction of the proposed project improvements on the Tassajara Highlands
site would modify the existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface
runoff and infiltration. These actions could result in a short-term increase in
erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Long-term impacts
could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing
vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of
Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
re-stated above, both of these impacts would be less-than-significant.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which
requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil
erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the
Tassajara Highlands project.
The project includes residential development of the type and in the location
assumed in the prior CEQA documents. The project also includes the design-
level geotechnical investigation required by the previously adopted mitigations
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
and will implement their project-specific recommendations. With adherence to
previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe significant
impacts than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for this
site. No further analysis is required.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0, the project developer has
commissioned a preliminary geotechnical investigation by ENGEO as updated in
2012. The report did not identify impacts related to landslide hazard on the site,
although the issue of shrink-swell potential or lateral spreading was not
addressed in this report. The ENGEO report and follow-on construction-level
reports will be required, pursuant to standard City development requirements,
to contain detailed design and construction methods to minimize impacts from
shrink-swell and/or lateral spreading potential for future site improvements
should these conditions be found on the site. These measures include special
foundations designed to resist the effects of shrink-swell potential and other
recommendations. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures,
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and the findings of the construction-level
geotechnical report, no new or more severe significant impacts have been
identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than
have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is
needed.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No
New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary
sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new or more severe impacts
with regard to septic systems.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and follow-on CEQA documents,
the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more
prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18,
2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth
requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2006 and 2007 MNDs. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and
prior MNDs have already been approved, the determination of whether greenhouse
gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed
by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166
and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not
required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of
substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).)
Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and the prior MNDs.
The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to these
CEQA reviews. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was
established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate
change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The
studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and
analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action
Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about
potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03-
05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was
adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was
known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the
adoption of the prior MNDs in 2006 and 2007. Under CEQA standards, it is not new
information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No
supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required
under CEQA.
Project Impacts
a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional
environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
prepared by ENGEO in September 2012 (" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
Dublin Highlands, 7020 & 6960 Tassajara Road, Dublin California"). This document is
incorporated into this Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin
Community Development Department during normal business hours.
Environmental Setting
The Phase I analysis prepared by ENGEO did not identify any recognized
environmental conditions on the project site. However, the report recommended that
removal of household debris on the site be supervised by an environmental professional
and that standard testing be completed for structures to be removed for asbestos
containing materials or lead-based paint. These recommendations will be made
conditions of project approval.
Previous CEQA documents
Fredrich Project MND. This document re-states Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures
for fire hazard reduction (Mitigation Measures 3.4/11.0 and 12.0).
Vargas Project MND. The Vargas MND contains Mitigation Measure 24, which reduced
impacts related to wildfire hazard by requiring development on the Vargas site to be
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
designed in a manner consistent with the City's Wildfire Management Plan. Future
dwellings are also required to include automatic sprinklers as well as being in
compliance with Alameda County Fire Department rules and regulations, City of
Dublin standards and the California Fire Code.
Project Impacts
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact
with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the Vargas
and Fredrich properties. Residential development was assumed in prior CEQA
documents for the two properties encompassing the project site. There would be
no use, storage or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials
associated with the proposed development. Conditions of project approval require
that removal of existing household waste materials on the site be monitored by a
qualified professional and that normal and customary testing be performed for
lead based paint and asbestos building materials prior to demolition of existing on-
site buildings. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site
than have been previously analyzed and no new analysis is required.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no
new impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials
than were analyzed in the Vargas and Fredrich CEQA documents and no new
analysis is required.
c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No
Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no
impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the
project area. No new or more severe significant impacts with respect to emission or
handing of hazardous materials within one-quarter of an existing or planned
school. No additional analysis is required.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties
comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of July 22, 2013. There
is therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic
than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No
New Impact. The project site is not located near a public or private airport, airfield
or airstrip. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated regarding
airport safety issues than were discussed in the Vargas and Fredrich CEQA
documents. No additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed
project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No
emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be
blocked. No new or more severe significant impacts would result than have been
previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. No
New Impact. The project area is located in a partially undeveloped area with
residential development approved to the east (Moller Ranch and Mission Peak)
and far west (Dublin Ranch West). However, significant natural areas remain to
the near west (Tassajara Creek and adjacent open space easement area) and south
(Moller Creek). The development/open space interface was addressed in prior
CEQA reviews. Adherence to mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA
documents will reduce impacts to wildland fire risk to a less-than-significant level.
There is no new or more severe significant impacts than previously analyzed. No
additional analysis is required.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water. The project site is located within the Alameda Creek watershed
which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la
Laguna. Moller Creek, a tributary of Tassajara Creek, flows in a northeast-southwest
direction through the project area to Tassajara Creek to the west. The main course of
Tassajara Creek flows in a north-south direction west of the site.
Existing site conditions. A majority of the site is undeveloped. Developed areas include
two single-family dwellings, outbuildings and driveways.
The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
Surface water quality.Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which
controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources.
In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in
November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of
stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and
construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin
is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated
effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San
Francisco Bay.
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Flooding. Upland portions of the site, not located near existing creeks, lie outside of a
100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 03626G).
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the
General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM
3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new
storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to
prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new
flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential.
• Mitigation Measures 3-5/51.0 to 55.0 reduced impacts related to non-point
source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part
of development projects and that the City should develop community-based
programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source
pollution. These mitigations also require all development to meet the
requirements of the City's Best Management Practices, the City's NPDES permit
and the County's Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to mitigate stormwater
pollution.
Fredrich Project MND. This document includes Mitigation Measure 66 that requires the
project developer to submit a preliminary creek alignment plan for Tassajara Creek
prior to approval of the project by the City.
Vargas Project MND. The adopted MND contains the following mitigation measures.
• Mitigation Measure 25 required the project developer to prepare a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that lists Best Management Practices to
reduce construction and post-construction activities to a less-than-significant
level. Specific BMPs may include revegetation of graded areas, use of bio-filters
and similar methods. The SWPPP shall conform to Regional Water Board and
City of Dublin standards. A Notice of Intent shall also be obtained by the
applicant from the State Water Resources Control Board.
• Mitigation Measure 26 required the project developer to submit a drainage and
hydrology study to the Dublin Public Works Department. The report shall
identify historic stormwater flows from the site, estimated increases in
stormwater flow and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate
additional flows. The report shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading
permit and shall also document the project's fair share contribution to fund any
needed downstream drainage system improvements.
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 27 required that the siting of storm drainage improvements
be consistent with Resource Management Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan.
The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation
measures.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact.
Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add
impervious surfaces to the essentially undeveloped site that would increase the
amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation
Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to
prepare and submit a water quality investigation. Mitigation Measure 25 contained
in the Vargas MND also requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan to minimize release of water pollutants that would exceed water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Adherence to the existing
mitigation measures to minimize water pollution and current standard City of
Dublin water quality requirements will ensure that no new or more severe
significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater
discharges would result than have been previously analyzed. No additional
analysis is required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New
Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to
depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA
documents. Although 54 new dwellings are proposed (two dwellings currently
exist) on the site, much of the site would remain as open space in terms of private
yards and an open space area, that would allow recharge of the underground
aquifer. Also, stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to an on-site
stormwater basin that would allow recharge of the aquifer in a location near
Moller Creek and Tassajara Creek.
Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water
supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. The project site is not
identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to
this topic than has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No
additional analysis is required.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would
be added to the Tassajara Highlands project site to accommodate new dwellings,
roadways, driveways, pathways and similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns
may be slightly modified based on proposed development, similar to the existing
approved Development Plan. However adherence to Mitigation Measure 46.0
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigation Measures 25 and 26 contained
in the Vargas MND would reduce changed drainage patterns to a less-than-
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
significant level. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with
respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed and no
new analysis is needed.
d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site?
No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are
anticipated as part of the Tassajara Highlands project. Based on the latest ENGEO
hydrology report, cited above, the proposed upland development area lies outside
of a FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. No new or more severe significant impacts
are anticipated than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is
required.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm
drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare
storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the Tassajara
Highlands project. Mitigation Measure 26 also requires completion of a drainage
and hydrology study to identify any drainage system deficiencies and funding of
system upgrades. Based upon this analysis, the project includes hydromodification
ponds in the southern portion of the site to ensure that the local and regional
drainage system would not be exceeded. Other water quality features have been
proposed for the project, as previously described. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding increases in
stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis
is required.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This potential issue and has
been addressed above in items "a" and "e." There are no new or more severe
significant impacts beyond those identified in prior CEQA reviews and no
additional analysis is required.
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Map? No New Impact. The development portion of the Tassajara Highlands
project is not located within a 100-year flood plain, as documented in the ENGEO
hydrology report. No new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated than
have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood
flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site
is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be
impacted by a tsunami or seiche. No new or more severe significant impacts
would therefore result with respect to seiches, tsunamis or mudflows than have
been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
10. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
The project site consists of a combination of flatter areas to the north and west with a
moderate to steep hill in the eastern and central portion of the site. Two single-family
dwellings and a number of agricultural outbuildings have also been constructed.
Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties
within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. Many of the surrounding properties have
been approved for development, including the Dublin Ranch West project, the Moller
Ranch project and the Mission Peak residential project, currently under construction.
Tassajara and Moller Creeks lie immediately south and west of the project site.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is
located within a distinct area, between Tassajara Road to the east and Tassajara
Creek to the west. All of the site would either be developed with dwellings and
related improvements or be reserved for permanent open spaces. Therefore, no
existing, established community would be physically divided. No new or more
severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact.
Although amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to reduce the amount of development on the property (101
dwellings approved v. 54 dwellings proposed), the number of dwellings would be
substantially less with the proposed project than under existing General Plan and
Specific Plan land use designations. No changes are proposed to any regulation
affecting environmental protection. No new or more severe significant impacts are
anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously
analyzed in other applicable CEQA documents and no additional analysis is
required.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No
New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the
Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public
projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a
resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to
permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land
development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is
neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan,
but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and
permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective
manner. The project site has never been within an HCP or NCCP area. There
would therefore be no new or significantly more severe significant impacts than
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and other CEQA documents
prepared for this site and no additional analysis is needed.
11. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No
New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of
minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts
would occur than have been previously analyzed.
12. Noise
Environmental Setting
The City's Noise Element of the General Plan defines "noise" as a sound or series of
sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise
is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences,
schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial,
industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum
recommended levels for these uses.
Regulatory Setting
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise
in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and
noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type.
Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80
Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80
nursing homes
Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70
arks
Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1, 2012
City of Dublin Page 64
July 2014
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within
Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from
Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land
uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific
significant future noise sources are identified on the project site.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed
housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a
future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that
future dwelling units meet City interior and exterior noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction
noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit
hours of construction operations among other things.
Fredrich Project MND. The Fredrich project MND contains Mitigation Measure 69 that
required preparation of a noise study prior to the approval of a Planned Development
Phase 2 Development Plan to show compliance with interior and exterior noise
standards. The noise study shall evaluate noise impacts of traffic on Tassajara Road on
the project as well as noise generated by air conditioners, pool pumps and other
mechanical equipment. Sound barriers and other noise measures included in the noise
study shall be incorporated into improvement plans and an acoustical engineer shall
sign construction plans.
Vargas Project MND. This document contains Mitigation Measure 28 that required all
Stage 2 and Site Development Review plans to show noise barriers, berms or solid
fencing to control noise in outdoor spaces (including rear and side yards) to comply
with applicable noise standards. A noise sturdy shall be prepared and submitted with
construction plans prior to a building permit. The report shall evaluate the effects of
traffic noise on Tassajara Road on project residences and include methods to ensure that
interior noise levels shall be 45 bBA or less.
The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures identified above.
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Project Impacts
a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. As
analyzed in previous CEQA documents affecting the site, development of
proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the
project site and future residents would be subject to traffic noise along Tassajara
Road. The project includes construction of a noise barrier wall adjacent to
Tassajara Road to reduce traffic noise on future residential lots to meet City
exterior noise exposure standards. A recommended condition of approval is to
have an acoustic specialist ensure that the final height of the wall will be sufficient
to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels within private yard areas based on the
final grading plan and building/yard topographic elevations. Adherence to
Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures, mitigation measures contained in
the Fredrich and Vargas MNDs, noise standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and the City noise ordinance will reduce noise to a less-than-significant level.
No new or more severe significant noise impacts have been identified than have
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact
3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to
future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/1), exposure of proposed
residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks
RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No
New Impact. The proposed project would not include construction or operational
elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby
residents (source: Mike O'Hara, applicant representative, 8/8/13). No new or
more significant severe impacts would result with respect to vibration or
groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the
project site and no additional analysis is needed.
c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased
levels of permanent noise on the project that would occur based on project
construction would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence
to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, mitigation
measures contained in other CEQA documents prepared for previous projects on
the same site and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. No new or more severe significant
impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously
analyzed and no additional analysis is needed.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short-term
construction noise generated on the project site would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, other CEQA documents and the Dublin Noise Ordinance.
These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
and to prepare construction noise management plans. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed and no additional analysis is needed.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? No New Impact. No portions of the Tassajara Highlands site
are located within the airport referral area for Livermore Municipal Airport. No
new or more severe significant impacts are therefore anticipated in terms of this
topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional
analysis is needed.
13. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The project area currently contains two single-family dwellings and unoccupied
outbuildings, but is primarily vacant.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New
Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional
population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected
properties has long been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and
Dublin General Plan since its adoption in 1993. Approval of the proposed project
would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than originally anticipated in
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (101 units currently
approved v. 54 proposed) but would be generally the same type of development as
assumed in previous CEQA documents. No new or more severe significant
impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect to
this topic and no additional analysis is required.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No
New Impact. The two existing dwellings currently on the site would be removed
to accommodate proposed development on the property, as assumed in previous
CEQA documents for the site. This would not be a substantial number of residents
and no impact would result. No new or more severe significant impacts than were
previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement
and no additional analysis is needed.
14. Public Services
Environmental Settin&
The following provide essential services to the community:
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial StudylTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon
Road.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda
County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties on the project site.
• Library Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR
addressing fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-
front costs of capital fire improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on
project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the
requirements of development approval.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an
assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will
provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and
qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise
beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police
protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project
approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic
safety and crime prevention.
Fredrich Project MND. This document contained he following mitigation measures
addressing public service impacts:
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 70 required project compliance with the City of Dublin Wildfire
Management Plan and installation of automatic fire sprinklers in each residence.
• Mitigation Measure 71 required payment of the City Fire Protection Fee prior to
issuance of building permits.
No significant public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the
Vargas Project MND.
The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? No New Impact. As reflected in previous CEQA documents
affecting the project site, approval and implementation of the proposed project
would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that
would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City
of Dublin's contract fire department, as a result of a greater number of dwellings
on the project site. The proposed project is required to adhere to mitigation
measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new
fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0), so that impacts to
the Alameda County Fire Department related to approval and construction of the
proposed project would be less-than-significant. Consistent with Eastern Dublin
EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the project site will be
conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to
maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site
access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features. Proposed
development on the site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's
adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure
3.4/12.0). Mitigation Measures contained in the Fredrich MND will also reduce
impacts of the proposed project on fire protection
Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service
beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra,
Alameda County Fire Department, 7/25/13) and no new or expanded fire stations
would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed Tassajara
Highlands project. No additional analysis is required.
b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new
impact with regard to police protection, based on mitigation measures included in
the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin
public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR
Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security
requirements into the proposed project, including but not limited to adequate
locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for
structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0).
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be
no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service
associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA
documents and no additional analysis is needed (source: Captain Tom McCarthy,
Dublin Police Services, 7/24/13).
c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should
the proposed Tassajara Highlands project be approved since payment of mandated
statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide
mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA.
There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with
respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact.
Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of
Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be
required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore
be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this
impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No new
analysis is required.
15. Recreation
Environmental Setting
No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on
the project site. However, the City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities
throughout the community.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa County.
The project applicant is planning to construct a recreational trail along the western side
of the project site along the east side of Tassajara Creek.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR
addressing fire and police protection include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each
new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail
corridors.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the
City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active
recreation use.
• Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements
along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and
staging areas.
No mitigation measures were included in the Vargas or Fredrich CEQA documents that
applied to the Tassajara Highland site.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use
of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the site, although with fewer dwellings than
assumed in previous CEQA documents. No parks are proposed on the project site,
however, the project developer proposes to pay community facility fees to the City
of Dublin based on the number of expected residents in the project. These fees, in
combination with fees paid by other developers, will fund City of Dublin parks
elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. There would therefore be no new or more
severe significant impacts with respect to recreation than were previously
analyzed.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? See item "a," above.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial road that
provides access from southern Contra Costa County to the 1-580 freeway and southerly
into Alameda County south of the I-580 freeway.
Existing transit service. The Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)
provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri-Valley. The Bay Area Rapid
Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station
located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just
west of Arnold Road. Limited bus service is currently provided to the project site.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. There are no marked pedestrian facilities
adjacent to the proposed project site along Tassajara Road. However, there is a striped
and paved shoulder for bicycles on either side of Tassajara Road adjacent to the project
site.
Previous CEQA documents
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing
roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated
increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin
area.
With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation
impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of
insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the I-580 freeway
between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between
Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM
3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/I), and
cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N).
Fredrich Project MND. This CEQA document included the following applicable
mitigation measures:
• Mitigation Measure 79 required the project developer to advance funds to the
City to acquire right-of-way and construct roadway improvements identified in
the September 25, 2005 TJKM Transportation Consultants traffic impact analysis
for the proposed Fallon Crossings Development project.
• Mitigation Measure 80 required the project developer to contribute a pro-rate
share of the cost to improve the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound off-
ramps/Pimlico Drive intersection to include a third left-turn lane for the
eastbound off-ramp approach for this intersection.
a Mitigation Measure 81 required the project developer to pay Tri-Valley
Transportation Development (TVTD) fees for I-580 and I-680 freeway
improvements as well as TVTD fees for BART station improvements.
Vargas Project MND. The following Mitigation Measures were included in the Vargas
MND:
• Mitigation Measure 29 required the project developer to widen Tassajara Road
between North Dublin Ranch Drive and the City/County line to four lanes, in
the event this project is developed prior to the Moller Ranch/Casamira or the
Fallon Crossings projects. Additional property may be required for dedication
along the project frontage, as determined by the City Engineer.
• Mitigation Measure 30 required the project developer to pay the Eastern Dublin
Traffic Impact fee to the City to fund improvements at the Dublin
Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial StudyfTassajara Highlands Project July 2014
• Mitigation Measure 31 required the project developer to advance funding to the
City for acquisition of right-of-way and construction of improvements for the
project's fair share of cost at the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection.
• Mitigation Measure 32 required the project developer to contribute a fair-share of
the cost to improve the Santa Rita Road/I-580 Eastbound Ramp/Pimlico Drive
intersection to include a third left-turn lane for he southbound off-ramp
approach as well as related improvements.
• Mitigation Measure 33 required that the southern entrance to the project site line
up with the entrance/exit for the Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley project. The
developer of this project is also required to install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Tassajara Road and the southern entrance/exit to the project.
• Mitigation Measure 34 required the final project design shall provide adequate
parking to serve the residential development. A detailed parking analysis shall
be submitted that reviews on- and off-site parking shall also be submitted in
conjunction with the Stage 2 rezoning and Site Development Review
applications.
The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the above transportation
and circulation mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system,
including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other
components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including
level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? The
Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project site with residential
land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof.
Additional analysis of increased traffic and circulation impacts occurred in 2006,
as part of the Fredrich MND and in 2007 as part of the Vargas property
development.
The two approved projects would have contained up to 101 dwellings (68
dwellings on the Fredrich site and 33 dwellings on the Vargas site. The following
table compares estimated vehicle trips from the proposed Tassajara Highlands site
v. trips that would have been generated from he previously approved
development projects. The following table does not include trips generated from
the two existing residences on the site that would be removed as part of the
proposed project.
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Table 2. Comparative Trip Rates-Approved v. Proposed Development
No. Dwellings A.M Peak P.M Peak Total Daily
Trips Trips Trips
Approved 101 73 88 916
Development
Proposed 54 39 47 490
Development
(Difference) 1 1 -34 1 -41 1 -426
Notes:
1) Assumes development of 33 dwellings on Vargas site and 68 dwellings on Fredrich site
2) Trip rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition
Based on the above table, the proposed Tassajara Highlands project would
generate an estimated 34 fewer a.m. peak hour trips, 41 fewer p.m. peak hour trips
and 426 fewer daily trips than the current amount of approved development.
There would therefore not be a new or more severe significant impacts on the
roadway system that was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents and no
new analysis is needed.
However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to
significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger
Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the
following roads and transportation facilities:
• I-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive;
• The Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps;
• The Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassaj ara
Road intersection;
• Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR.
c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes
residential uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more
severe significant impacts would result with respect to this topic than was
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No new analysis is needed.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New
Impact. Although the project includes a reduction in the number of units
compared to prior approvals, approval of the proposed project would add new
driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none
currently exist. The current development proposal will be required to comply with
current City engineering design standards and other safety standards to ensure
that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
significant impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. A single, signalized roadway
access to Tassajara Road would be provided to serve the site. Based on discussions
with the Alameda County Fire Department, the proposed drive would provide
adequate emergency access to and from the site (source: D. Jones, Assistant Fire
Marshall, 8/15/13). No new or more severe significant impacts would result with
respect to this topic and no additional analysis is needed.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian
facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New
Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit,
pedestrian use or similar features were identified with either the Fredrich or
Vargas development proposals as part of previous CEQA reviews. The current
project would include sidewalks along Tassajara Road to allow for enhanced
pedestrian circulation for future project residents. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study that has been
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site. No additional
analysis is needed.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
The project area is served by the following service providers:
• Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD).
• Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD.
• Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7.
• Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: AT &T
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant
and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/13 (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer
demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of
wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal
facility has been constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency and is operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant
capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant
level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. No additional
analysis is needed.
No mitigation measures pertaining to utilities or service systems were contained in the
Fredrich or Vargas MND documents.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? The current project would
contain the same type of development but fewer units than analyzed in the prior
CEQA documents. Based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (noted below)
regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater
requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No new or
more severe significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in
previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities?
No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing
mains in Tassajara Road would need to be constructed to serve the amount of
development proposed in the Tassajara Highland development application.
According to a representative of DSRSD, the need for increased water, wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed
project would not result in a new or more significant impact than was analyzed in
previous CEQA documents that assumed a greater amount of development on the
site (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 8/25/13).
The Tassajara Highlands project would also contribute to cumulative impacts
related to consumption of non-renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4/S, increase
in energy use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the
operation of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of
substantial growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5/T). All of these
impacts were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
The project still includes residential use, but with a fewer number of dwellings
than currently proposed. The previously identified impacts would be somewhat
reduced, but not to less than significant. The project would not result in any new
or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in the prior CEQA documents.
No additional analysis is required.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed Tassajara
Highlands development project would require new and or upgraded drainage
facilities to support proposed development. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR
Mitigation Measures, the project developer will be required to install new or
upgraded on and off-site (if required) storm drain systems that comply with City
of Dublin and Zone 7 standards. No supplemental storm drainage impacts were
identified in other previous CEQA documents. The current project would
generally require the same type of drainage facilities as anticipated for approved
Fredrich and Vargas development projects in 2006 and 2007, respectively. No new
or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with respect to storm drain
facilities that have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional
analysis is required.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Based on the information
provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this
site and included such development in the District's Urban Water Management
Plan (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 8/25/13). No new or more severe significant
are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been previously analyzed.
No additional analysis is required.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above.
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of
Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste
pick-up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no
solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is largely
undeveloped. The topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially
significant impact in previous CEQA documents and no new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been
previously analyzed. No additional analysis is needed.
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No
New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe significant impacts are
anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed and no additional
analysis is needed.
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No New
Impact. Potential impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in
habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community,
or elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or
prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs. The proposed
project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed there
are no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously identified
in the prior CEQA documents.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No
New Impacts. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Tassajara Highlands project
have been analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and prior MNDs.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been
discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director
Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Project Manager
Andy Russell PE, City Engineer
Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department
Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
DSRSD
Stan Kolozdie
Applicant Representatives
Mike O'Hara
References
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11
Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1993
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore
Associates, 1996
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Geotechnical Update, Dublin Highlands Project, ENGEO, Inc. July 2012
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014
Livermore Municipal Airport Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ESA
Associates, August 2012
Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City of Dublin, 2006 update
Tassajara Highlands, Dublin CA, Environmental Noise Assessment Charles M.
Salter Associates, November 2013
City of Dublin Page 80
Initial Study/Tassajara Highlands Project July 2014