Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 225-03 GrenbrarTassajIIIPrRESOLUTION NO. 225 -03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN MAKING FINDINGS RELATED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING AND STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ON APPROXIMATELY 64 ACRES AND STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON 22.3 ACRES, APPROVING A CEQA ADDENDUM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GREENBRIAR TASSAJARA III PROJE~ CT ~ST 0F TASSAJARA ROAD AND NORTH OF THE CASTERSON PROPERTY PA 02-048 WHEREAS, Majorie Koller, property owner, and Pat Constanza of Greenbriar Homes Communities, developer, have requested approval of a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment on approximately 64.39 acres known as the Yarra Yarra Ranch site (Tract 7075, lots 1 - 131, Parcel A - K) and a Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V consisting of 22.3 acres generally located west of Tassajara Road, north of the Casterson property (APN. 985-0002-008-02 and APN. 985-0002-007-02), for development of a 10g dwelling unit residential development and one single-family residence, in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved general plan and specific plan amendments and a Planned Development rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan (PA98-062) for an approximately 64.39 acre area; and WHEREAS, Applicant/Developer has submitted a complete application for a Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V dated November 15, 2002, as required by Section $.32 of the Zoning Ordinance, which is available and on file in the Community Development Department, Planning Division; and WHEREAS, this project is within the Dublin General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which a Program EIR was certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SCH No. 91-103064). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could apply to the Project. Pursuant to the Communities for a Better Environment case, approval of the proposed Project must be supported by a new Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, in connection with the prior approvals, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative. Declaration tiering from the Eastern Dublin EIR. (Resolution 31-00, incorporated herein by reference.) The City completed an Initial Study for the current project, including a shift in density from Phase III to Phase IV and additional detail on construction and improvement plans for Phases III and V. Based on the Initial Study, the City determined that the Eastern Dublin EIR and the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately describe the potential impacts of the project and that the current project would have no substantial new or more severe impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous environmental documents. An Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164(a) was prepared for the minor project changes, concluding from the Initial Study that the project will have no significant effect that was not addressed in the previous EIR and MND and that nonew significant information has arisen for this project that would require further environmental review under CEQA Guidelines § 15126; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public heating on said application on October 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the related Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Review for PA 02-048, and recommended approval of the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases m and V, and the Addendum for PA 02-048 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V and the Addendum for PA 02~048; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum with the previously certified Eastem Dublin EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration before making a decision on the Project; and WItEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth prior to taking action on the proposed Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V, and Addendum for PA 02-048. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are tree and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T~T~e Dub!in,~ity Council does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding approval of the said proposed Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V for PA 02- 048: The proposed Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases 1II and V for PA 02-048 meets the intentand purpose of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and accomplishes the objectives of Section 8.32~010, A through H, of the Zoning Ordinance because it provides Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans for the Greenbriar Homes Communities project (PA 02-048) that will create a desirable use of land and an environment that will be harmonious and compatible with existing and potential development in surrounding areas and because the site plan has been designed to be compatible with other proposed and approved plans in the vicinity, The project site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of this residential project in that it is intended to confo~ wi~ the,.~ity policies related to residential development in Eastern Dublin and to be designed to minimally affect the existing topography and terrain of the site; has adequate access; and, is of a sufficient size to provide housing as well as open space for the furore residents of the project. o The proposed Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because 2 the Development Plan for the project has been designed in accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan, Eastem Dublin Specific Plan and EIR and Addenda. Additionally, project specific analysis has determined that the project's design is sensitive to biological features onsite and to surrounding land uses. o The proposed Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan for the project is consistent with all elements and policies of the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan because the 108 unit single-family development and single-family residence project is within, and is consistent with, the total number of units allowed within the density range of the Single Family, Medium Density Residential designations of both the City of Dublin General Plan Land Use Element and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (as amended), and because it conforms to the elements and policies of those plan~s through the provision of open space and wildlife habitat protection required by the Land Use, Parks and Open Space and Conservation Elements, roadways consistent with the Circulation Element, adequate public facilities as required by the Schools, Public Lands and Utilities Element, Housing as desired by the Housing Element, and safe design as required by the Seismic Safety and Safety Element. The Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan is consistent with Chapter 8.32 of the City's Zoning Ordinance because the Stage 1 and 2 Development Plans for the project establish permitted uses which will ensure that the project is compatible with existing and proposed residential and public uses in the immediate vicinity. o The Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Planned Development Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan will provide efficient use of the land pursuant to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan that includes the preservation of significant open areas and natural and topographic landscape features with minimum alteration of natural landforms. o The Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan will be compatible with and enhance the general development of the area by creating an attractive, efficient and safe environment, and by integrating affordable housing within the proposed residential units. ge The Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan will not overburden public services as all agencies have committed to the availability of public services prior to the annexation of the property to the City of Dublin, and will reconfirm their commitment prior to the. issuance of building permits as required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and mitigation measures. The adopted Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan for PA98-062 serve as the reporting and monitoring program required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 for the Planned Development Rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment and Stage 2 Development Plan in conjunction with the Conditions of Approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and the Site Development Review, approved by the Dublin Planning Commission. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council approves the Addendum and Initial Study Exhibit,A-! attached and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project Exhibit A-2 attached and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 2003. AYES: Councilmembers McCormick, Oravetz, Sbranti and Mayor Lockhart NOES: Councilmember Zika ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: Mayor K2/G/11-18-03/reso-greenbriar.doc (Item 6.1) G:\02048\CC-ResoPD2findings CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE GREENBRIAR PROJECT PA 02-048 October 22, 2003 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution 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 Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 assessing a reduced development area project alternative, The City Council adopted ResOlution 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative On May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluatedthe potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR many implementing projects such as the Greenbriar project have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the first-tier certified EIR. The Council adopted a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the entire Greenbriar project on March 7, 2000. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 for the current Greenbriar project as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals The City approved development of the Greenbriar site in March 2000..The approvals included General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments, and a PD rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan for 445 residential lots on 64.35 acres, to be developed in five phases. A Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review were also approved for Phase I of the development. A Vesting Tentative Map and Site Development Review was later approved for Phase II of the development. This Addendum refers to these approvals collectively as "the Greenbriar approvals". The current application proposes a PD rezoning to amend the Stage 1 Development Plan to shift 85 residential units from Phase III to Phase IV. The PD rezoning would also adopt a Stage 2 Development Plan for Phase III, including 108 units and related improvements, and a Stage 2 Development Plan for a single family home on Phase V. The current applications include a Vesting Tentative Map for Phase III and Site Development Review for Phases III and V. A Development Agreement will also be required. This Addendum refers to these applications collectively as "the Project". The Project is further described in the Initial Study referenced below. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for a largely undeveloped area east of the then-existing City. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Easfern 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. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the current Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference. Greenbriar Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development of the entire 64.35 acre Greenbriar site was further reviewed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) assessing the potential for site- specific impacts of proposed development. Tiering from the program-level review in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the MND examined the potential for significant impacts not identified in the prior EIR. The City Council apprOved Resolution 31-00 adopting the MND on March 7, 2000, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. Relying on the Eastern Dublin EIR and Greenbriar MND, the Council approved the Greenbriar proposal. Construction of Phases I and II of the Greenbriar development is nearly complete, with all improvements installed and housing construction nearly finished. The Greenbriar development as analyzed in the adopted MND proposed 445 residential lots across a 64.35 acre site with drainage outfalls into Tassajara Creek and future construction of two bridges across the creek. Trails, project-related grading and other improvements were also proposed in the creek area. The proposed development and these improvements raised environmental concerns, primarily about water quality and biological resources. These issues were addressed not only in the draft MND, but also in responses prepared by the City to comments received during the MND public review period. The Draft MND dated October 12, 1999 and the Responses to Comments dated February 11, 2000 (RTC) are incorporated herein by reference. In response to these concerns, the Greenbriar approval required that an open space easement be created along the creek corddor~ in which improvements would be permitted only as specified in the approval. Upon approval of the Greenbriar development in 2000, the City determined that the site specific impacts of the development were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Greenbriar MND and that significant impacts of the project were adequately addressed by adopted mitigation measures of both documents. The City also determined that there was no new information showing new or substantially more severe impacts. (Resolution 31-00.) Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for the Project The current Project proposes to amend portions of the original Greenbriar approval by shifting 85 residential units from Phase III to Phase IV. The current Project also proposes detailed construction plans for Phases III and V, and includes related detailed information on development and improvement of these two phases. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15063(c)(7), the City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether the previous environmental documents could be used for the Project or whether supplemental environmental review would be required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Updated Initial Study. The City has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous MND to determine if any further environmental review was required for the current PD rezoning, Vesting tentative map and site development review applications. The City also reviewed the applicant's Tassajara Creek Red-Legged Frog Monitoring Report dated July 2003, and Tassajara Creek Phase III Development Project Restoration Plan dated August 1, 2003. The monitoring report reviewed the effectiveness of Red-legged frog mitigations required by the Greenbriar approvals and implemented during construction of Phases I and II. The report confirmed that no frogs were observed in the construction area. The restoration plan report includes protective measures for riparian area features approved in the Greenbriar approvals and proposed for construction in Phases III and V. In particular, this report describes the creation of a Red-legged frog breeding pond also approved in the Greenbriar approvals and proposed for construction with the current Project. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated October 21 2003 and incorporated herein by reference, reflecting the monitoring, restoration plan, and other biological resource reports as included in the Project. Through the Initial Study, the City examined whether the Project would require additional review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, as further described below. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines section 15162. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After review of these 2 conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for the ' Project. a) Are there substantial changes to the project involving new or more severe significant impacts. There are no substantial changes from the project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Greenbriar MND. The Project is consistent with the residential uses and densities in the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is consistent with the rezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan approved in 2000 as to the location and extent of development areas and the location and extent of improvements within the open space corridor. The Project proposes to amend the Stage 1 Development Plan to shift 85 residential units from Phase III to Phase IV, which is located along Tassajara Road. This shift moves density from west of the creek to 'east of the creek, closer to Tassajara Road and other existing development. The shift also moves density to an area that is flat and already approved for similar development in the original Stage 1 Development Plan. The shifted units would be subject to development policies and standards in the City's adopted scenic corridor policies, such as varied roof lines, heights and pitches and other similar measures for development along a scenic corridor. None of these changes involves new or more severe significant impacts beyond those previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Greenbriar MND. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions in 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 and Greenbriar MND. As noted in the updated Initial Study, the California Tiger Salamander (CTS) was proposed for listing earlier this year. This is not a substantial change under CEQA because the CTS has long been a Species of Special Concern and impacts to this species from development under the General Plan were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and identified as potentially significant. (Impact 3,7/G.) Potential impacts to CTS were also a major concern in the 2000 Greenbriar approvals and the source of numerous comments during the MND public review period. CTS have been sighted in the past in the general Eastern Dublin area, though not on the Greenbriar property, and comments addressed not only aquatic impacts but also the potential for impacts related to loss of potential upland habitat. (See, e.g., USFWS comments 1-1 and 1-11 in the February 11, 2000 RTC.) With the open space area which is part of the Greenbriar project and implementation of the mitigations from the Eastern Dublin EIR and the MND, the City determined that there would be no take of CTS through construction of the Greenbriar development, and that suitable upland habitat, movement corridors, and potential breeding habitat would be provided. There are no changes in the project or circumstances from this earlier determination that would involve new or more severe significant impacts. beyond those previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Greenbriar MND. Furthermore, the applicant's monitoring report shows the adopted mitigation measures have been successful in avoiding harm to Red-legged frog during construction of Phases I and II~ and are expected to be similarly · successful in Phases III and V. 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 mitigations are now feasible but the applicant decline to adopt them; or, mitigations considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. The applicant's monitoring report is consistent with the Eastern Dublin EIR and Greenbriar MND ~alyses of the potential for Red- legged frog to be present on future development sites but not in development areas. The Project plans are consistent with the open space mitigations adopted with the Greenbriar approvals that provide habitat and movement corridors. All of these mitigations have been complied with by the applicant in past phases of the Greenbriar development and/or are reflected in the current Project as appropriate. 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 Greenbriar MND. As discussed above, the proposed listing of thc California tiger'salamander is not a new impact because the potential for impacts to this species was identified as potentially significant in the prior EIR and was further analyzed in the Greenbriar MND. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 based on an Initial Study dated October 21, 2003. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed shift in residential units from Phase III to Phase IV and update the biological analysis for the Project with respect to the proposed listing of the California tiger salamander; however, as discussed above, the update does not require further environmental review. Through adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above changes and updates do not require a subsequent EIR or ND under Guidelines section 15162. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, Greenbriar MND and this Addendum/Initial Study adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the Project. As provided in section 15164, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered by the Council with the prior EIR and MND before making a decision on the Project. The Initial Study (including the applicant's monitoring, restoration plan, and other biological resource reports), the Greenbriar MND and the Eastern Dublin EIR are available for review in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California. C:\My Documents\greenbriar.addendum.draft101503.doc . C:\Uy Documents\g reenbdar, addendum.appcomments.clean.doc 4 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/Initial Study Greenbriar Home Communities, Inc. Planned Development Rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan Amendment/Stage 2 Development Plan; Vesting Tentative Map; Site Development Review; Development Agreement PA 02-048 Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance 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. Applicant/Contact Person Greenbriar Home Communities, Inc. 43160 Osgood Drive Fremont, CA 94539 Attn: Katja Kamangar Project Location and Context The project, known as Greenbriar Tassajara III, is located on the Yarra Yarra Ranch on the west site of Tassajara Road, north of the Casterson Development in the City of Dublin. Details of the Project are shown in the applicant's Planned Development and Vesting Tentative Map Plan set, dated October 10, 2003, hereafter "Plan Set" and incorporated herein by reference. The Vicinity Map (Sheet 3 of Plan Set) depicts the regional setting of Dublin and the Location Map (Sheet 1 of Plan Set) shows the location of the project in context with nearby features. The project area is located in the Dublin Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area. Existing land uses adjacent to the project area include lands of East Bay Regional Park District (north), Dublin Ranch (east), Casterson Development (Tract 6979 - Tassajara Meadows )(south) and Camp Parks (Lands of Alameda County) (west). The current project is part of the approximately 64-acre Greenbriar development, which was approved by the City in 2000 (PA98-062). Phases I and II of the development are currently under construction. The project site is relatively level property that was primarily used as a horse ranch and equestrian center. The primary natural feature of the project area includes Tassajara Creek west of Tassajara Road. It traverses the site and flows in a north south direction down the middle of the site. Plan Set Sheet 2 is an aerial photograph of the project area. Project Description The City approved a Stage 1 Development Plan ("Stage 1 DP") for the Greenbriar development in 2000, consistent with Chapter 8.32, Planned Development Zoning District, of the Dublin zoning ordinance. The development consists of 445 residential units, public and private open space, and a regional trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor on an approximately 64-acre site, to be constructed in five phases. Phases I and II of the development are currently under construction. The project proposes to amend the approved Stage 1 DP to transfer 85 residential units from Phase III to Phase IV. The existing and proposed Stage 1 DP is shown on Sheet 3 of the Plan Set. The number of units in Phase III would be reduced from 193 to 108. The number of units in Phase IV would increase from 79 to 164 and would move from the west side of Tassajara Creek to the east side, along Tassajara Road. Access to and from the project site to Tassajara Road would not change. The overall density of the Greenbriar development also would not change, remaining at 6.91 units per acre based on 445 units on the 64 acre site, and consistent with the original development approvals. No changes are proposed to the approved interim uses for Phase V (Horse Stable/Riding Academy/Single Family Residence). The project also includes a Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review for construction of Phases III and V, and a Vesting Tentative Map for Phase III. Phase III would contain 108 single-family units/lots on approximately 19 acres. Proposed as a small lot subdivision, the units will be in clusters of 3 to 7 homes. Eight of the units are proposed as townhomes and will be affordable, as required by the City's inclusionary housing ordinance. The project includes 8 open space parcels, Parcels A-H on Sheet 4 of the Plan Set. Phase V of the project consists of building an approximately 4,000 sq. fi. single family home on an existing 2 acre parcel, shown as the Koller site on Sheet 4 of the Plan Set. Key features of the project in the development area and the open space parcels are described below. Developm en t Plan A street network connects Phases I and II to the project via two public bridges. These two bridges connect to private streets leading to a north/south private street that is the primary street access for the subdivision. The bridges are proposed to be maintained by the city and the private streets are to be maintained by a homeowners association. Access to most of the dusters of homes is provided by private driveways that are accessed directly from the private street. Resident parking is provided primarily within enclosed garages with guest parking along the private street. Open Space Parcels A 100 fi. open space easement currently exists along the west side of Tassajara Creek, as required by the prior Greenbriar approvals. The easement provides an open space buffer between the areas of housing development and the top of bank of the Creek. The original Stage 1 DP for the entire Greenbriar development approved the following elements in the buffer area. Bridges: Two clear-span bridges, bridge abutments and portions of the bridges that connect to the private street system. The (north) Sommerset Bridge is designed as a 44'-9" wide bridge with a 10 ft wide sidewalk in accordance with East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) requirements to accommodate pedestrians, equestrians, and hikers on a separate pathway. The (south) Maymont Bridge is 39'-9" wide and includes a 5 fi. sidewalk on the south side of the bridge for pedestrian access. CRLF Breeding Pond: The project includes creation of a California red-legged frog (CRLF) off-channel breeding pond in the upland area at the southernmost end of the property adjacent to the western bank of Tassajara Creek as further described in Tassajara Creek Phase III Development Project Restoration Plan, dated August 1, 2003 and California Red-legged Frog Avoidance and Preventive Measures for the 2 Tassajara Creek Phase III dated March 2003, both incorporated herein by reference. The pond will be located within open space parcel D. This parcel will be dedicated to Zone 7. Trails/Maintenance Roads/EVA: A multi-use trail is proposed to function as regional trail, Zone 7 maintenance road and EVA between the northerly bridge and the EBRPD property at the north end of the project site, including the 2-acre Koller site. Sommerset Bridge would provide a trail connection to the existing regional trail on the east side of Tassajara Creek. A local trail/Zone 7 maintenance is proposed between Sommerset Bridge and Maymont Bridge. The road is designed to meet Zone 7 standards as an 18 ft. wide class 2 AB road including a 2 ft. concrete ditch. (Sheet 10 of Plan Set- Cross Sections). A Zone 7 maintenance road is proposed from Maymont Bridge to the southernmost open space parcel (Parcel D). The road is designed to meet Zone 7 standards as an 18 ft. wide class 2 AB road including a 2 ft. concrete ditch. (Sheet 10 of Plan Set- Cross Sections). A Zone 7 road is proposed in Parcel D to accommodate maintenance vehicles required for flood control and creek management. The applicant proposed to continue the maintenance from Parcel C and connect to an existing road in the adjacent Alameda County lands. The road is'designed to wrap around the east and south sides of an existing knoll in Parcel D and up to the north west end of the parcel A spur road would consist of gravel or a suitable all-weather surface such as turfblock, without a ditch. (See Sheet 11 of Plan Set). The spur road would follow the alignment of the existing dirt road along the westerly property line, and is designed to minimize grading and to maintain a migratory corridor for frogs and salamanders. The roads and any associated grading will maintain a minimum 50' setback from the proposed frog pond. Outfall structure: An outfall structure is proposed within Parcel F. The outfall structure consists of a concrete energy dissipater box, rip -rap apron and sheet pile cut-offwall. A portion of the outfall structure is located within the Riparian Corridor, but all of the structure is located above the ordinary high water mark within the creek channel. A similar outfall was constructed in Phase I of the development. The following elements are proposed with the project's specific improvement plans but were not specifically identified in the previous approvals. Bioswale: A 10 ft. bioswale along the west side of the trail along Parcels F and G. The bioswale will be designed to meet Best Management Practices and is incorporated within the landscape plan proposed for the open space parcels. (See Sheet 10 of the Plan Set.) Sewer siphon: A sewer siphon is proposed in lieu of running a gravity fed sewer line beneath the southerly bridge. The siphon will be constructed beneath the creek using a jack and bore process. Two bore pits are proposed and are located outside the riparian corridor. The staging area will be the same as used to build the bridges. The anticipated construction timeframe of the siphon is one week. Phasing of improvements Construction of the improvements will be done as a single phase. The applicant is responsible for the cost of all improvements associated with this project. 1. Project description: PD Rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan amendment is proposed to transfer units/density from Phase III to Phase IV. Phase III was approved for 193 units on 16.19 acres (11.92 du/ac) and Phase W was approved for 79 units on 10 acres (7.9 du/ac). The proposed amendment would transfer 85 units in Phase III to Phase IV. This would result in 108units (6.6 du/ac) in Phase III and 165 units (16.5 alu/ac) in Phase W. The overall density for the entire 64.35-acre site would remain the same as the approved Stage 1 Development Plan at 6.91 units per acres. PD Rezoning/Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map, Site Development Review proposes construction of 100 single- family detached cluster homes and 8 affordable town homes and construction of an approximately 4,000 sq. fi. single family home on the existing 2 acre Koller lot, and creation of 8 open space parcels (Parcels A - H.) 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Deborah Ungo-McCormick Contract Planner (408) 297-8763 4. Project location: The project is located on the Yarra Yarra Ranch on the west site of Tassajara Road, north of the Casterson Development, east of Camp Parks, south of lands of East Bay Regional Park District in the City o f Dublin. 5. Project sponsor: Greenbriar Home Communities 6. General Plan designation: Medium Density Residential (6.1 to 14.0 du/ac) 7. Zoning: Planned Development - Medium Density Residential 8. Public agency required approvals: Approval of a Streambed Alteration Agreement for new bridges over creek and outfall structure (California Department of Fish and Game) Approval by San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for improvements near creeks and drainage courses 4 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 Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards and Hydrology/Water Land Use/Planning Hazardous Materials Quality Mineral Resources Noise Population/ Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/ Circulation Utilities/Service Mandatory Findings Systems 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 N--~gative' Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. ~ I'find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. ~ I find that although, the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document purSUant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addreSsed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: Date: Printed Name: For: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 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). For a project such as this, with previous environmental reviews, a "no impact" answer may also mean that the project has no impact beyond those identified and analyzed in the previous environmental documents. All answers must take account of the whole action, 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. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" 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. 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 following the checklist. I. Aesthetics. WouM the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 4,5,7,7) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 3,4,6,7) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 4,6,7) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? '(Source: 4, 6,7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. II. Agricultural Resources WouM the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 5, 6, 7) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture usc, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 5, 6, 7) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, duc to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 5, 6, 7) III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by thc applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). WouM the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 5,6,7) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 5,6,7) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase 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? (5,6,7) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 5,6,7) e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 5,6,7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. IV. Biological Resources. WouM theproject a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 4, 7) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by thc California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 6,7, 8,9) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of thc Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 4, 6, 7,8,9) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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:: 4, 6, 7) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 4, 6, 7,10) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation'~lan? (Source: 5,6,7,8) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X x X x X Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. V. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source:2, 5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. '15064.5 (Source:: 4, 6, 7) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or umque geologic feature? (Source:: 4, 6, 7) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: :4,6,7) VI. Geology and Soils. }VouM 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 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source: (4, 6, 7) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (5, 6) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (: 4, 6, 7) iv) LandslideS? ( 4, 6, 7) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ( 4, 6, 7) 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- and off-site lar~,dslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 4, 6, 7) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 6) e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. VII. 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 (Source: 2,5,7) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into thc environment? (Source: 5,7) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 5, 7) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 5, 7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5, 7) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 5, 7) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2, 4) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 4,7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X 10 Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 4,6,7) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer 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? (Source: 4,6,7) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 4,7, 8.9) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or 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: 7, 9) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. (Source: 4,7) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2,4) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 7) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (5) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (5) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X 11 Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. IX. Land Use and Planning. WouM the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 3) 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 general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2,4,6) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (4,6,7) X. Mineral Resources. I/VouM the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 4,5) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1, 4,5) XI. Noise. l/VouM the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2,11) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne.vibration or groundbome noise levels? (Source: 2, 7,11) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 2, 7) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source: 2,7) e) For a project located within an airport land use 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? (Source: 2,5,7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X 12 Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,5,7) XII. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 4,5,7) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (4,5,7) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 4,5,7) XIII. Public Services. WouM the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2,4,7) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities XIV. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2,4,6,7) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,4,7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X , X X X X X X X X 13 Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. XV. Transportation and Traffic. WouM the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in 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)? (4,7,12) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (2,7,12) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (7,12) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (7, 12) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2,4,13) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (4,7) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities)(2,7) XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2,4,7) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 4,7) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,4,7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2,4,7) Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X X X X X X X 14 Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 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? (6,7) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (6,7) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2,4,6,7) XVI. 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 planf 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? 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). c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation X X X X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Project location (City of Dublin) 2. Discussion with City staff or service provider 1. Site Visit 2. Project plans 3. Eastern General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan 4. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA98-062) and Monitoring Plan - March 2000 6. Tassajara Creek Phase III Development Project Restoration Plan (Oberling Environmental, Inc.), August 1, 2003 7. California Red-Legged Frog Avoidance and Preventative Measures Plan - March 2003 15 8. Tassajara Creed Red-Legged Frog Monitoring Summary Report - July 2003 9. Tree Report (revised) Phase 3 - Yarra Yarra Ranch (HortScience, Inc.) September, 2003 10. Environmental Noise Analysis for Tassajara Creek III by Charles M. Salter Assoc.- August 2003 11. Letter of Review of Tassajara Creek III by TJKM Traffic Consultants - January 2003 XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Eastern Dublin EIR. 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, consisting of draft EIR and responses to comments documents as well as a May 4, 1993 Addendum) certified by the City Council on May 10, 1993 (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference). This EIR together with an August 22, 1994 Addendum are hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or EDIER. 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. As part of the certification the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative loss of agricultural/open space lands, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities, loss of habitat, regional air quality, noise and visual impacts, among others. 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 Eastern Dublin area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts related to the project are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Greenbriar Development. On March 7, 2000, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA 98-062, a 445 residential unit development on the 64.35-acre Greenbriar site. (Council Resolution 31-00, incorporated herein by reference.) The development proposed a residential cluster subdivision development, with open space and a regional trail along Tassajara Creek. The City approvals included a General and Specific Plan amendment to change a portion of the site from a school designation to a residential designation (Council Resolution 32-00, incorporated herein by reference), and a Planned Development rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan (DP) for the entire Greenbriar site. (Ordinance 7-00, incorporated herein by reference.) The Stage 1 DP identified permitted uSes and development standards in the development areas as well limited uses in the open space area along the creek and would be implemented in 5 phases. The approvals also included a Stage 2 DP (Ordinance 7-00), vesting tentative map and Site Development Review for Phase 1 (Planning Commission Resolution 00-10, incorporated herein by reference) with more detailed development plans for the first phase of the development. This Initial Study refers to these approvals collectively as the "Greenbriar approvals". Tiering from the Eastern Dublin EIR, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) evaluated the potential site-specific effects of the Greenbriar development proposal that were not examined in the prior EIR. The MIlD identified potential impacts on biological resources, primarily related to the discovery of a California Red-legged frog (RLF) in Tassajara Creek. The MND also addressed the potential-for upland migration impacts not only in the draft MND but also in the City's written responses to comments received during the document's public review period. 16 There were also concerns about the potential water quality impacts of proposed drainage outfalls to the ' · / creek. The applicant later obtained a Streambed Alteration permit for the outfall in Phase I; the outfall has since been built and there have been nO related water quality issues. Current Initial Study. The current project continues to implement the Greenbriar approvals from 2000. With the proposed density shift between Phases III and IV, and the more detailed construction and improvement plans for Phases III and V, the City prepared this Initial Study to determine if there was the potential for site-specific impacts not addressed in the prior EIR and MND, that would require additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163. In connection with this Initial Study, the City carefully reviewed the current project applications and repo. rts as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and Greenbriar MND. The City also reviewed the February 22, 2000 Planning Commission and March 7, 2000 City Council staff reports which identified and analyzed the 2000 Greenbriar development approvals. The following documents are incorporated in this Initial Study by reference and are available for review at City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. a) The Eastern Dublin EIR, as described above. b) The Greenbriar Mitigated Negative Declaration consisting of a draft MND dated October 12, 1999 and the Draft Responses to Comments on the MND, dated February 11, 2000, as revised by the City Council on March 7, 2000. c) March 7, 2000 City Council staff report for PA 98-062. d) February 22, 2000 Planning Commission staff report for PA 98-062. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES & ANALYSIS The following discussion includes explanations of answers and discussion related to the above checklist questions regarding potential environmental impacts. Each discussion is annotated with the number corresponding to the checklist form. Project Setting: The project is located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Phases III and V are located on the west side of Tassajara Creek, south of the EBRPD site, east of Camp Parks (Alameda County lands), and north of the Casterson subdivision. The project area is primarily flat but contains small rolling slopes with small two knolls located on the north site (Lot 131 - Koller) and south side (Parcel D - Open Space). The project site area is currently occupied by a barn, smaller outbuildings and contains abandoned vehicles and debris near the creek. Vegetation is primarily non-native grasses with native trees (coast live and valley oak, California Buckeye, yellow and sandbar willow and Black Walnut) along the creek and a small grove of sandbar willow in the center of the site. There are 27 Heritage trees in the Phase III area including 21 Valley oaks and 6 Coast live oaks. Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures .Aesthetics: Potential aesthetic impacts related to development in the East Dublin Specific Plan area were analyzed in the EDEIR. Specific potential impacts resulting from development of the Greenbriar site were further analyzed in the MND. The proposed amendment to the Stage 1 Development Plan shifts density from Phase III to Phase IV. This shift in density results in a density of 16.4 units per acre, which is higher than previously approved in the State 1 17 II. III. Development Plan for Phase IV, but does not cause the Overall project to exceed the previously approVed maximum of 445 units or the overall density of 6.91 units per acre. Tassajara Road is identified as a scenic corridor in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and requires special treatment for development on the proposed project site. The shift in density dOes not increase the development area identified in the prior approval nor change any of the approved development standards. The shifted units on Phase IV would be shown in future Stage 2 Development Plans and site Development Reviews for that phase. TheSe future plans would be required to comply with the City's adopted Scenic Corridor policies calling for varied roof lines, heights and pitches, widened roadway landscape areas, and rural landscape pattern along scenic corridors such as Tassajara Road. The Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review for Phases III and V are also consistent with approved development standards as to uses, size, architectural styles, color and materials, and standard measures to reduce light and glare. Phases III and V are not located adjacent to the Tassajara Road Scenic Corridor and the dense vegetation provided by the Tassajara Creek provides a natural screen between the existing and planned residential developments on the east side of the creek. No aesthetic impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Agriculture Resources: Impacts of residential land uses in the agricultural and open space areas of Eastern Dublin were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands were found to have a significant unavoidable impact for which the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations upon adoption of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration further determined that the subject site is not listed as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance that will be converted from the development of this site. No conflicts with the Williamson Act contract will occur for the Koller property as it expired on January 1, 1998. The project is consistent with the uses, densities and development areas assumed in the prior environmental reviews. The impacts of converting lands to residential uses for the Greenbriar site were adequately addressed in the prior EDEIR and the MND. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Air Quality: Potential air quality impacts from development in Eastern Dublin were addressed in the earlier EIR, and through 'various mitigation measures. Construction-related air quality impacts include short-term violation of adopted standards or contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, and could result in exposure to sensitive receptor pollutants. Development of the Specific Plan will also result in traffic-related air quality impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified these impacts as significant and unavoidable, for which the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The Greenbriar MND examined potential impacts on a site-specific level, including the change from school use to residential uses. The current project is consistent with the type and density of uses assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the MND since shifting residential units from Phase III to Phase IV does not increase the number of units or the potential emissions No air quality impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. 18 IV. Biological Resources: California Red-Legged Frog: The Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted for the Greenbriar development in March 2000 addressed thc potential impacts that the development of the project site would have on biological resources. A California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoni) was discovered in Tassajara Creek by the biologist that was reviewing the project on behalf of the City of Dublin. The CRLF is a Federally listed threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species act of 1973. The development plans of Greenbriar's Tassajara Creek project included the construction of two outfalls that include a concrete energy dissipater box, rip-rap apron and sheet pile cut-off wall, all located above the ordinary high water mark within the creek channel. Upon approval of the Greenbriar development in 2000, the City determined that the development would not have significant environmental impacts to the RLF or RLF habitat based on the adopted MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program, on studies prepared by the Applicant's and City's biologists, and on mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR. In accordance with conditions of approval for the Greenbriar development, Greenbriar Homes Communities hired Olberding Environmental Inc, Wetland Regulatory Consultants, to prepare a "California red-legged frog Avoidance and Preventative Measure Plan", dated April 6, 2001, incorporated herein by reference. The "Plan" established a program for the protection of the CRLF, associated with the Greenbriar development. The Plan included the survey of grassland regions adjacent to the creek by an approved CRLF biologist, the installation of a construction boundary fence, the installation of a "silt" barrier frog fence, avoidance education for all contractors on the project, and the daily patrol and monitoring of construction activities on the Tassajara project site. The purpose of these measures was to allow for development of the lands located on the east side of the Creek, between the creek and Tassajara Road, without resulting in "take" of the CRLF. A Tassajara Creek Red-Legged Frog Monitoring Summary Report was prepared by Olberding Environmental, Inc. for the period between April 2001 through June 2003 and submitted to the City of Dublin in July 2003 and is incorporated herein by reference. One outfall was constructed during this period on the east side of the creek, and Phases I and II of the development are under construction. The Report concluded that during the 4/2001-6/2003 period of construction the CRLF were not observed in or adjacent to the construction area of the Tassajara Creek. The current project for development of Phases III and V includes the construction of the second outfall structure within Tassajara Creek (Parcel C) and a sewer siphon structure The outfall structure will be similar in design as that constructed on the east side of the Creek and will also be constructed above the high water mark of the creek channel. The sewer siphon will be constructed outside the riparian area in Open Space Parcel B and a pipe within a steel casing that is constructed at a minimum of 8 ft below the bed of the creek. The project also incorporates a "California red-legged frog Avoidance and Preventative Measure Plan", dated March 2003 and incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the avoidance and preventive measure used during the development of Phases I and II on the east side of Creek, Phase III includes the creation of potential breeding habitat for the CRLF at an approximately 7,500 sq. fi. pond along the west side of Tassajara Creek (Parcel D), consistent with the previously approved Stage 1 Development Plan. Additionally, the project includes migratory corridors adjacent to the open space parcels along the northwest and southwest boundaries of the project to provide for upland migration from the creek, again, consistent with the previously approved Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed amendments to the Stage 1 DP would not affect either the breeding pond site or the open space/migratory corridor parcels. 19 California tiger salamander (CTS). On May 23, 2003, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the Federal Register a proposal to list the California tiger salamander (CTS) as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. By court order, the Service has until May 15, 2004 to make a final decision whether to list the species. The proposal to list does not provide the CTS with any legal protection under the ESA; that will not occur unless and until the species is actually listed. The CTS has been a candidate for federal listing since the early 1990's, and long regarded by state and federal agencies as a "Species of Special Concern." Consequently, for the last 10 years or more, most CEQA documents, like the Eastern Dublin EIR, for projects located in areas where CTS coUld occur have analyzed CTS-related impacts. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed potential impacts to CTS, and imposed mitigation measures requiring buffer zones around CTS breeding ponds, and pre-construction surveys ( See Impact 3.7/G). The adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Greenbriar development incorporated by reference the "California Tiger Salamander Survey for the Yarra Yarra Ranch Site," prepared by Zentner and Zentner (April 8, 1998).and the "Special Status Species Evaluation, Yarra Yarra Ranch II Site," Zentner and Zentner (October 20, 1998). The survey was conducted on March 31, 1998 and concentrated on a stock pond, which provided the only potential CTS breeding habitat on the property. No CTS were observed. The Special Status Species report evaluated the project site for special status species habitat. It specifically addressed the project area west of Tassajara Creek. The report noted that the mderal grassland west of the creek was highly disturbed due to underlying fill materials and long-term dumping of horse stable bedding on the surface, and that this mderal grassland was dominated by tall poison, hemlock and star-thistle. The report concluded that suitable habitat for CTS was not present within the project site and no CTS were observed. During the comment period for the MND, five different agencies or organizations commented on potential impacts of the project on CTS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda Creek Alliance, and Ohlone Audubon Society)~ The USFWS, commented that CTS were then known to occur both east and west of the project site, and that it is important for this species to preserve upland areas. (See Comment 1-11, RTC.) The City's response explained that the 1993 EIR had imposed CTS-related mitigation measures that would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. The City also noted both the applicant's biologist and the City's biologist had concluded that the Phase III portion of the project (i.e., that portion of the project west of Tassajara Creek) could provide CTS upland habitat, but that the mitigation program required of the project would provide suitable upland habitat and migration corridor area, as well as potential new CTS breeding habitat in the form of the pond to be constructed. (See Response to Comment 1-11.) Similar responses were provided to the other CTS-related comments noted above (See RTC dated February 11, 2000). The California Natural Diversity Database, operated by CDFG, identifies recent CTS sightings on Camp Parks including a siting in 2002, approximately 1,300 feet from the northwest comer of Phase III. It shows a CTS sighting on Camp Parks in 2002, a sighting southwest of the site in 1997, southeast of the site at two different locations in 1998, and northeast of the site in 2000. Additionally, the city biologist contacted Camp Parks and was informed of a siting in 2000 closer to the northwest comer of the site in a ponded area near debris. The applicant's and city's biologists have concluded that the more recent sighting does not alter the City's CTS-related analysis and conclusions in the previous EDEIR and MND. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the potential for impacts to CTS, while the MND identified the potential impacts specific to the Greenbriar site, including the potential for upland habitat loss from development. The MND specifically recognized that some potential CTS upland habitat could occur in the Phase III area. 20 This was based on information showing CTS then occurred both west and east of the project site. The 2002 sighting at Camp Parks is consistent with that information, and does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances. Further, the project includes migratory corridors on the northwest and southwest comers of the Phase III project to provide for the potential movements of CTS to and from the creek to the uplands in Camp Parks. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Stage 1 Development Plan was reviewed that would result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed Stage 1 DP amendment would shift residential units away from the creek and to an area already planned for development, and thus would not be a substantial change in the project. Further, there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the MND that identifies a new significant impact, or a substantially more severe impact. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no further analysis or mitigations are required. Trees: Vegetation is primarily non-native grasses with 'native trees (coast live and valley oak, California Buckeye, yellow and sandbar willow and Black Walnut) along the creeks and a small grove of sandbar willow in the center of the site. By the City of Dublin's Heritage Tree Ordinance (No.29-99) criteria, there are 27 Heritage trees in the phase III area: twenty-one (21) Valley oak and six (6) Coast live oak. The project will result in the removal of 34 trees including two (2) heritage trees, one(l) 26" Coast live oak (Maymont Bridge) and one (1) 24" Valley oak (Sommeset Bridge). Impact 7 in the MND evaluated the impact of bridge construction on trees, including the removal of one valley oak heritage tree and five coast live oaks ranging in sizes from 5" to 12". The MND identified the impact as potentially significant without mitigation and recommended a mitigation measure to replant with native species to restore vegetation. One additional heritage tree is proposed to be removed with the construction of the Maymont Bridge over those identified in MND. The loss of one additional heritage tree is not considered a substantially more severe impact than previously identified, and replacement vegetation is provided in the project plans, consistent with the adopted mitigation measures from the MND. The project includes replanting, as required in the MND, including the installation of a dense canopy of native trees. New trees are proposed at a greater than 3:1 tree replacement ratio for heritage trees as recommended in the Eastern Dublin Creek Restoration Plan. No significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis and no additional mitigations are required. Cultural Resources: Potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the development of the Greenbriar site were analyzed in the EDEIR and MND. No cultural sites or resources are anticipated on the site, and none has been found so far in the Phase I and II construction. As noted in the MND, standardized procedures for evaluating accidental finds and discovery of human remains shall be followed as prescribed in Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. There are no existing religious or sacred uses within the project area so no impacts are expected. Previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR will be incorporated as conditions of approval/development standards for this project to address any potential cultural resources impacts. 21 VI. VII. No cultural resources impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastem Dublin EIR and the Mitigated Negative Declaration were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis and no additional mitigations are required. Geology and Soils: Potential impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area related to geology and soils were evaluated as part of the EDEIR, and potential impacts specifically related to the Greenbriar site were analyzed in the MND. No known active or potentially active faults traverse the project site, and no Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zones are located within the site. In addition, a Geotechnical Investigation for the Koller Property was prepared on May 26, 1999 by Lowney and Associates indicated that no ancient or active landslides exist on the site. The MND identified the potential for fault ground rupture to be less than significant. Eastern Dublin is in a seismically active area, however, and the Eastern Dublin identified the potential for significant unavoidable groundshaking effects. The Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The project will be required to incorporate standard engineering practices and all structures will meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The project includes grading activities related to cut and fill of the site and the construction of retaining walls and trails and maintenance roads. The project grading plan proposes to balance cut and fill on the site. Construction of trails, roads and bridges will occur within the Open Space buffer, as described in the Stage 1 Development Plan for the entire site (PA98-062). All construction related to these features will occur outside the top of bank and outside the riparian corridor. The proposed sewer siphon system reduces the need to elevate the southern portion of Phase III -by three to four vertical feet in order to prove the required cover of the sewer lines and to enable gravity flow. Based on the project engineer's estimate, a gravity flow system would have required that approximately 36,000 cubic yards of fill be imported to the site, over 2000 track loads of dirt that would need to be hauled off the site. With the current design, the need for this export-is avoided. Construction and operation of the sewer siphon is not considered a substantial change in the project and would not result in new or more severe significant impacts. No new geology and soils impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and MND are expected to occur for the project, therefore no further analysis or mitigation is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: These items were addressed in the earlier Eastern Dublin EIR, and though various mitigation measures. As noted in the MND, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was conducted (Levine-Fricke-Recon, July 31, 1997) to determine the presence or absence of any on-site hazardous waste disposal, including visible waste, artificially mounded or discolored soil or noxious odors. No above ground fuel storage tanks or evidence of under ground tanks were found. No PCB's were found on the site. In addition, a data search was conducted which determined that this site is not included in on a list of hazardous waste and substance sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the MND adequately address potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts for the project. The proposed amendment to the approved Stage 1 DP would shift some residential units to Phase IV and further away from the regional trail and Camp Parks open areas, but does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the previous environmental 22 VIII. IX. Xe documents and all adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project, as appropriate. The project also includes an emergency vehicle access to the open space development interface area and conformance to other emergency vehicle access requirements for the project. Additionally, the project conforms to the requirements of the City's Wildfire Management Plan regarding building design and sprinkler requirements. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the EDEIR and the MND were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Hydrology and Water Quality: This item was addressed in the earlier EIR and MND analyses and through various mitigation measures. The project is located in an area of minimal groundwater recharge and ground water reserves and the majority of the Tri-Valley's ground water resources are in the Central Basin, south of this project. Nevertheless, development of the project site would have an impact on the ground water resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in impervious surfaces within the project site. However, no impacts not previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Greenbriar MND are expected occur since the development areas and total density is the same as assumed and analyzed in the prior documents. The project conforms to Zone 7 requirements and will meet the water quality requirements of the City's NPDES permit and the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. The project proposes no alterations to the Tassajara Creek. All drainage from the development shall be designed to connect to the local storm system that has the capacity to handle the anticipated runoff from the project. The project includes a bioswale within the open space parcels located between the creek and the proposed development. Two stormwater outfalls were evaluated as part of the Stage 1 DP approval for the project. Both outfalls were designed to reduce velocities so that impacts of the outfalls are at a less than significant level. Additionally a HEC-2 analysis of the creek hydraulics was conducted for the construction of the two bridges as part the Phase III 'project. It concluded that runoff from the project will not impact the overall watershed hydrology. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the EDEIR and the MND were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required.. Land Use & Planning: Development of the Greenbriar site on both sides of the creek with residential homes was analyzed as part of the EDEIR and MND. The Stage 1 DP amendment proposes to transfer 85 residential units from the west side of the creek in Phase III to the east side of the creek in Phase IV. The overall site density and maximum number of units will remain consistent with the originally approved Stage 1 DP. The Stage 2 Development Plan proposed land uses for Phase III and V are consistent with the general plan density and uses approved for this property, and compatible with existing development on the east side of the Creek in Phases I and II. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the EDEIR and the MND were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Mineral Resources: Impacts from development of the project site were adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. The operation of water and wastewater systems necessary to serve the entire Specific Plan area was identified in the EDEIR as requiring increased energy use. This 23 XI. XII. topic area was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the EDEIR and the MND were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required.. Noise: Impacts from development related to noise were adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. The analysis included a discussion of exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise, exposure of existing residences to furore roadway noise, and exposure of existing and proposed residences to construction noise. Because Phase III and V are located within 6000 feet of the Camp Parks (RFTA), an additional acoustical study was required to assess exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (RFTA) and County Jail and to determine if additional mitigation measures should be imposed that were not previously identified in the MND. An Environmental Noise Analysis for Tassajara Creek Phase III was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. on August 19, 2003, incorporated herein by reference. The noise analysis quantified existing noise environment at the project site near the RFTA and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Regional Training Center, and analyzed the Parks RFTA noise sources discussed in the Environmental Noise Management Plan (ENMP) prepared by the U.S. Army Center for Health Promotions and Preventative Medicine. The noise analysis assessed the noise exposure at the location of proposed dwelling units with respect to the applicable indoor noise standards and outdoor noise goals based on the Dublin General Plan standards of 60 dB for outdoor noise exposure and 45 dB for indoor noise exposure. The analysis concluded that the outdoor noise goal can be achieved at the project site without mitigation and that the indoor noise standards specified in the EDEIR can be achieved without sound-rated windows. Some intermittent noise sources from the Sheriffs training center will be audible at the project site, such as gunshot noise from firing ranges and tire squeals from Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (EVOC), though audible, will not be expected to acoustically impact the project site. Additionally, some seasonal and intermittent noise sources from Parks RFTA will be audible at the project site, such as occasional helicopter operations. These can result in an annoyance factor to some residents. However, the typical daily average noise levels generated by the Parks RFTA and the Sheriff's training center will not exceed City standards or require additional mitigation to the project. No impacts beyond those' analyzed in the EDEIR and the MND were identified for this project and no additional mitigation measures are required. Therefore, no further analysis is required.. Population & Housing: Impacts associated with the development of the Greenbriar site were adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. The proposed 109 units are within the range of units anticipated for this site by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR. The City of Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requires the construction of 12% affordable units within each new development. Phase III includes the construction of 8 affordable units (7.5%) within the project and the payment of in-lieu fees to make up the difference, as permitted by the ordinance. The development of housing within this site will not result in displacement of any housing units but rather will add to the City of Dublin's housing stock. No impacts beyond those analyzed in the EDEIR and the MND were identified for this project. Therefore, no further analysis is required. 24 XIII. XV. Public Services: Potential impacts to public services resulting from development of the Greenbriar site were adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. No additional units or services are proposed with this project that were not previously addressed in the prior analysis. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Recreation: Potential impacts to recreation resulting from the development of the Greenbriar site were adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. The analysis identified that one 56 acre City Park will be located within one-half mile to the south of the project and three community parks are proposed within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In addition, a regional trail proposed in the. Stage 1 DP for all 5 phases of the Greenbriar development on both sides of the creek will connect with the regional trail in the EBRPD lands to the north of the site. The current project is consistent with the densities and recreational elements discussed in the previous analysis. Therefore, no additional analysis is required. Transportation and Traffic: Potential traffic from development of the Greenbriar site was adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. The proposed revisions to the Stage I DP for the project include transferring 85 residential units from Phase III to Phase IV of the Greenbriar development. TJKM Traffic Consultants submitted a Review of the Proposed Tassajara Creek III Development on January 13, 2003, which is incorporated by reference, and determined that the revisions will not result in significant changes in the analysis and conclusions of the original EDEIR and MND. TJKM concluded that the Tassajara RanctffDublin Ranch Parkway (North) would continue to operate as' main access road for the homes and it is still expected to operate a LOS A during both a.m. and. p.m. peak hours under Existing plus Approved plus Pending plus Development Buildout Scenario. Therefore, no additional analysis is required. XVI. Utilities and Service Systems: These items resulting from development of the Greenbriar site were adequately addressed in the EDEIR and MND. The extension of water, electrical and natural gas lines into the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area has been determined by the Eastern Dublin EIR to be a significant growth-inducing impact and, therefore, was included within the Statement of Overriding Considerations as an unavoidable adverse effect of the project. No additional units or development is proposed from what was previously analyzed in the EDEIR and MND. Therefore, no additional analysis is required. 25 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 Greenbriar Phase III project in Eastern Dublin. The City previously approved residential development through a Planned Development Rezoning/Stage 1 Development Plan for 445 homes on the 64.39 acre Greenbriar property to be developed in five phases. The City approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) analyzing development of the entire 64.35 acre site, and identifying site-specific impacts and mitigation measures. Phases I and II of the Greenbriar development are under construction. The current project proposes to amend the Stage '1 Development Plan to shift 85 units from Phase III to future Phase IV. The current project also includes a Stage 2 Development Plan for Phases III and V, as well as a Vesting Tentative Tract Map for Phase III and Site Development Review for Phases III and V. The current proposals are collectively referred to as "the Project". The Project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential and Open Space land use designations for the site, as assumed in the Eastern Dublin EtR and updated in the Greenbriar MND. The Project contains design and environmental protection measures to implement adopted mitigation measures from the previous EIR and MND. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin. Pursuant to a recent court decision, the City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the Greenbriar Project. ~ The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified inthe Eastern Dublin EIR that are applicable to the Project site will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original approval, with the previous Greenbriar approvals, and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the current Project approval, and further implemented through the related Conditions of Approval for 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 the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Greenbriar 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. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastem Dublin. apply to the Greenbriar Project: Land Use Impact 3. f/F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/B; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. The Project site was used as a horse ranch and equestrian center. It currently contains a barn, smaller outbuildings, abandoned vehicles and debris near Tassajara Creek. Considerable development has occurred south and east of the Greenbriar Project, including Phases I and II of the Greenbriar development, but the site retains 1 ,,...publiC officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. Califomia Resoumes Agency 103 CaI.App. 4th 98, (2002). some open space, rural character. The Project will preserve a substantial amount of open space along the creek, however, future development of the Project site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.3/B, .3.3/E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: A Traffic Study prepared for the Project examined proposed site-specific traffic improvements and the effect of shifting units from Phase III to Phase IV. The study concluded that the Project does not result in significant changes from the Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration analyses. That is, roadway improvements and Project participation in the City's Traffic Impact Fee program will avoid the Project's site specific impacts, however, development of the Project will incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.4/Q. Demand for Utility Extensions; 3.4/S, Consumption of Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.5/F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the Greenbriar Project will contribute to increased energy consumption and utility extensions on undeveloped lands. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3. 6lB. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Greenbriar 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, B, C, and E: Future development of the Greenbriar 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 Eastem 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 Greenbriar Project site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Greenbriar Project as further set forth below. The Greenbriar Project clusters development in a relatively unconstrained portion ~of the site whose future development would further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals and the previous Greenbriar approvals. Future development would provide planned housing while retaining important open space and visual qualities in the Tassajara Creek buffer area, as well as providing both regional and local trails. The Project would provide the potential for 109 new homes, as well as construction jobs, in an area near transit facilities, schools, and proposed parks. The Project is also convenient to existing and future housing in Dublin, will provide 8 affordable housing units and pay in-lieu fees for 6 other units of housing, and could substantially increase property tax revenues. 670400-1 2