HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Exh A-CEQA Addendum CEQA ADDFNDUM FOR SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 3
October 13,2015
On July 9, 1996, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 203-08, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/Genera] Plan Amendment
("Schaefer Ranch EIR, SCH #95033070). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
separate Responses to Comments, both in bound volumes. The Schaefer Ranch EIR evaluated
the potential environmental effects of urbanizing the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch
with a mixture of residential, cammercial, office, parks,public and semi-public and open
space land uses.
This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Unit
3 portion of Schaefer Ranch, as described below.
Project Description and Prior Approvals
The City of Dublin approved development of portions of the approximately 500-acre Schaefer
Ranch in 1996. The approvals included a General Plan Amcndment,prezoning, annexation to
the City, Zone 7 and DSRSD, detachment from the Hayward Area Recreation and Parks
District, vesting tentative subdivision maps and a development agreement.
Thc Schaefer Ranch is located in the western portion of the City of Dublin and adjacent to the
western City limit of Dublin. More specifically, the Schaefer Ranch is located on thc north
side of the I-580 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of
current City of Dublin City limits.
Portions of Unit 3 of Schaefer Ranch included in the application are located at the western
terminus of Dublin Boulevard (Subarea 1) and at the western terminus of Ridgeview Place
(Subarea 2). For the 17.28-acre Subarea 1, the project proposes to resubdivide ll .3 acres
containing 6 estate-residential lots to 19 sinble-family residential lots within the same
development area.
The current application for Subarea 1 includes an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, a
Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Site
Development Review and a tentative subdivision map . For Subarea 2, the project proposes to
b�iild a single family dwelling on a 1.14-acre site. Applications have not yet been submitted;
however, a General Plan amendment, Planned Development rezoning with related Stage ] and
Stage 2 Development Plan, and Site Development Revicw would be required for the proposed
development.
EXHIBIT A
Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 Page 2
Addendum EIR-City of Dublin
October 2015
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Schaet�er Ranch EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban
development planned for a then largely undeveloped area west the City of Dublin. Numerous
environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigations adopted upon approval of
the Schaefer Ranch General Plan General Plan Amendmcnt. For identified impacts that could
not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations. All previously adopted mitibation measures for development of the overall
Schaefer Ranch project that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to
the currently proposed Project. The Schaeler Ranch EIR is incorporated herein by reference.
Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this
Project.
Updated Initial Study and Project. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is
the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the
City reviewed the Schaefer Ranch EIR to determine if any further environmental review is
required for the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning with
related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan,Site Development Review and associated
applications for Unit 3 of the Schaefer Ranch.
The Project analyzed in the Initial Study includes re-subdivision of portions of Schaefer
Ranch Tract 6765 to create 13 additional residential lots on Subarea 1 of Unit 3, located
at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard in the western portion of the Schaefer
Ranch. Dublin Boulevard transitions to Schaefer Ranch, a private street, within the
project area. One other residential lot would also be created at the western terminus of
Ridgeline Place. Land use entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, a Planned
Development rezoning, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and
Final Maps for the area locatcd at the terminus of Dublin Boulevard. A future General
Plan Amendment,Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review and Final
Map would be required for the property located at the western terminus of Ridgelinc
Place.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated October 13, 2015, attached and incorporated
herein by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent
EIR, or negative declaration is required for this Project.
No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental
review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or
negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis:
cz) Are there substantia! changes to tl2e Project involving new or naore severe signifi�cant
impacts? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there are no substantial changes to
the Project from that analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. A slight inerease in the
Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 Page 3
Addendum EIR-City of Dublin
October 2015
number of dwellings are proposed as part of this project, but the total number of dwellings
would be less than the 466 units originally approved for Schaefer Ranch and less than the
474 units analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Project on the Unit 3 portion of
the Schaefer Ranch would not be a substantial change to the approved Schaefer Ranch
project and no additional or different mitigation measures are required.
This General Plan Amcndment would replace the "Estate Residential" and "Open
Space " land use designation with "Single Family Residential" and"Open Space" on
14.7 acres of land at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and an "Open Space"
land use designation with "Single Family R�sidential" on an approximately 1.14-acre
site at thc western terminus of Ridgeline Place.
b) Are there substantial changes in t12e conditions whicll the Project is undertaken involving
new or- more severe significa�zt impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions
assumed in thc Schaefer Ranch EIR.This is documented in the attached Initial Study
prepared for this Project dated October 13, 2015.
c) Is there new information of substa�itial importarice, which was not known a.nct could not
have been known at tlie time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will J2ave a
significant effect not addressed in t{ze previous EIR; or previous effects are rnore severe;
or,pr-eviously infeasible mitigatio�ti �neasures are now feasible but the applicant declined
to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably differentfrom those in the previous
EIR would substantially reditce sig�ii ficant effects bitit the applicant declines to adopt
t{iem? There is no new information showing a new or mare sevcre significant effect. As
documented in the attached Initial Study, no new or different mitigation measures are
reyuired. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project,except as
noted in thc Initial Study.
d) If no sc�bseguent EIR-level review is reqatired, should a sa�bsequent negative c�eclaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative dcclaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond
those idcntified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on the attached Initial Study dated October 3,2015. The Addendum and Initial Study review
the proposed redesignation of land uses and development as discussed above. Through the
adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor
changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162. The City further dctermines that the Schaefer Ranch EIR,
adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for
public review, but shall be considered with the prior certified EIR before making a decision
on this project.
Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 Page 4
Addendum EIR-City of Dublin
October 2015
The Initial Study, Schaefer Ranch EIR and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein
by i-eference and arc available for public review during normal business hours in the
Community Development Departmcnt, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA
SCHAEFER RANCH
UNIT 3
INITIAL ST UDYI
CEQA ADDEND UM
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Prepared By:
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner
October 2015
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................2
Applicant........................................................................................................................2
ProjectLocation and Context ......................................................................................2
ProjectDescription........................................................................................................3
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................15
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................17
EarlierAnalysis .............................................................................................................29
Attachment to Initial Study .........................................................................................31
1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................31
2. Agricultural Resources.........................................................................33
3. Air Quality .............................................................................................34
4. Biological Resources .............................................................................37
5. Cultural Resources................................................................................39
6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................40
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................43
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................43
9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................45
10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................49
11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................49
12. Noise .......................................................................................................50
13. Population and Housing......................................................................52
14. Public Services .......................................................................................53
15. Recreation...............................................................................................57
16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................58
17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................62
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................64
InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................................................65
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................65
References ......................................................................................................................65
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and City of Dublin
Environnlental Guidelines. T11e Initial Study 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 environinental topics addressed in the checklist. The proposed
project is a modification of a project already approved by the City-the Schaefer Ranch
project. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch project were analyzed in an environmental
impact report that was certified by the City in 1996 (Schaefer Ranch Project/General
Plan Amendment Envirorunental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 95033070 (the
"Schaefer Ranch EIR" or "1996 EIR").
For the potentially significant impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranc11 EIR that apply to
tl�e proposed project, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are incorporated
into this Initial Study by reference.
Applicant
Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC
4061 Port Chicago Highway, Suite H
Concord CA 94520
Attn: Doug Chen, RCE, LS
(925) 803- 2617
Project Location and Context
The project analyzed in this document is a portion of the larger Schaefer Ranch
development project, identified as Unit 3 of Schaefer Ranch. The overall Schaefer Ranch
development contains approximately 500 acres of land located in the western portion of
the City of Dublin and adjacent to the western boundary of the City Dublin. More
specifically, Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at the
western terminus of Dublin Boulevard.
Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the
Schaefer Ranch in context with the City of Dublin and the nearby I-580 freeway.
This Initial Study analyzes proposed land use changes that would affect two small sites
comprising Schaefer Ranch Unit 3. One portion of the project (Subarea 1) is 17.30 acres
of land along Schaefer Way, located west of the current cul-de-sc terminus of Dublin
Boulevard. A second portion of the project (Subarea 2) involves a 1.14-acre parcel of
land located at the western cul-de-sac terminus of Ridgeline Place. For the purposes of
this Initial Study, these two Subareas are identified as the "project" or the "project site."
The two component areas of the project site are shown on Exhibit 3. This exhibit
identifies Subareas 1 and 2, described more fully below.
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Existing land uses adjacent to the overall Schaefer Ranch include vacant lands to the
north and west (within the unincorporated portion of Alameda CoLU1ty), vacant lands
and residential uses to the east and the I-580 freeway to t11e south. Properties south of I-
580 include the Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian facility and vacant lands within the
unincorporated portion of Alameda County.
Project Description
Back�round. The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and prezoning was
approved by the City of Dublin in 1996. Subsequently, the Ranch was annexed into the
City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. A vesting tentative subdivision
map for the entire Schaefer Ranch property and a development agreement were
approved by the City of Dublin in 1998.
1996 Project EIR. An Environmental Iznpact Report (EIR) was certified by d1e City of
Dublin in 1996 for the whole of t11e proposed Schaefer Ranch development. The project
analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and related
features:
• A total of 474 residences, including a mix of estate residences, singe family
detached dwellings and attached residential dwellings;
• Retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail and office
center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second,
smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580;
• Public and semi-public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a water
storage tank and street rights-of-way;
• Parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that
includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District trail, trail head
facilities and related improvements. A private homeowners' association
recreation facility was also approved; and
• Approximately 89 acres of the Schaefer Ranch devoted to other non-buildable
open spaces, including but not limited to wildlife habitat areas, drainage
retention areas and a reconstructed creek corridor.
Primary access is provided by the westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard and the
construction of Schaefer Ranch Road, a north south arterial roadway that crosses under
the I-580 freeway to connect to Dublin Canyon Road south of the freeway.
A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Tract 6765) was subsequently approved by the
City of Dublin for 466 total lots on the Schaefer Ranch. The original approval also
included extensive grading and re-contouring of the site and extension of utilities and
services to support proposed uses.
Significant portions of the Schaefer Ranch development have since been constructed. To
date, the project developer has re-graded the Schaefer Ranch property, re-subdivided
portions of the overall property into 3021ots and, extended Dublin Boulevard,
constructed Schaefer Ranch Road, dedicated trails to the East Bay Regional Park
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
District, constructed a water storage tank and storinwater retention basins and
completed znajor water and sewer lines.
2008 EIR Addendum. In 2008, the City approved an Addenduin to the 1996 EIR for
properties in Unit 2 of the Schaefer Ranch that included a General Plan Amendinent, a
vesting tentative subdivision map, a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 2
Development Plan and a Development Agreement to delete the approved
approximately 5.69-acre retail commercial site on the southwest corner of Dublin
Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, 12 estate lots and 24 single-family lots on the
south side of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of the retail commercial site. These
uses were replaced with up to 140 single-family detached lots.
The 2008 Addendum was approved by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 203-08,
approved on November 4, 2GG8. The 2008 Addendum did not affect current or pro�osed
land uses on the project site.
Current develo�ment a��lication. The proposed project includes two separate
properties on the Schaefer Ranch property. These are identified as Subareas 1 and 2 on
Exhibit 3.
a) Subarea 1. The first portion of the project would include re-subdivision of
portions of six (6) existing Estate Residential lots on 7.04 acres of the 17.30 acres
of land located along the north and south sides of Schaefer Way at the western
terminus of Dublin Boulevard. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is lcnown
as VTM 8136. Approval of the proposed project would result in the creation of
nineteen (19) single-family residential lots (a net gain of 13 lots). Proposed lots
would range in size from approximately 7007 gross square feet to approximately
28,644 gross square feet. One primary dwelling unit would be allowed per
residential lot. Exhibit 4 shows the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
b) Subarea 2. A second part of the project would include creation of a new 1.14-acre
residential lot at the terminus of Ridgeline Place and construction of a single-
fainily dwelling on the lot (see Exhibit 5). Approval of a dwelling on this site
would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development
rezoning, a Site Development Permit and recordation of a Final Subdivision Map
to create this lot.
The required actions to approve the proposed project would include amending the
Dublin General Plan and approval of a Planned Development rezoning �Nith related
Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Subarea 1. Additionally, new Tentative
Subdivision Maps would be needed for Subarea 1. Future approvals of a General Plan
Amendinent, a Planned Development rezone, a Site Development Review Permit and
other actions would be required to allow construction of a dwelling on Subarea 2.
If approved, the build-out number of lots on the entire Schaefer Ranch would increase
by a total of 141ots, which includes proposed development on Subareas 1 and 2. The
total unit count would increase to 420 dwellings which is less than originally approved
and fewer dwellings analyzed in the 1996 EIR, which was 474 residential lots and 10.7
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
acres (gross) of coinznercial uses. The commercial use designation has been since
deleted.
Access and Circulation. No changes are proposed to the currently approved and
constructed roadway system. Both Schaefer Way (a private road) and Ridgeline Place (a
public road) are built and operational.
As part of this application, the applicant is requesting relief from the provisions of
Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 that require fair share payment towards a future traffic signal
(EIR pp. 4-15, 4-22). The traffic signal requirement was based on projected signal
warrants for near term and cumulative 2010 build-out traffic; however, circumstances
have changed since the prior EIR in that build-out traffic levels do not meet signal
warrants. By email dated October 16, 2014, the County Public Works Agency stated the
developer no longer needs to make the fair share payment so Iong as the developer
installed certain improvements, which the developer has agreed to do. Based on the
changed circumstances in which a traffic signal is no longer warranted for cum�.ilative
traffic, deletion of the fair share payment obligation would not result in new or inore
severe significant impacts at the intersection beyond those identified in the 1996 EIR.
Gradin . All Subareas have been mass graded pursuant to a grading permit issued by
the City of Dublin. Additional minor grading may be needed in order to create future
house pads, access roads and easements. Trenching and excavation would also be
required for underground utilities.
Infrastructure. As identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, the project developer would
provide a range of underground utilities to serve the proposed dwellings, including
potable, wastewater, telecommunication, natural gas and electrical service. These
facilities have been provided.
Re�uested land use a��rovals. As described above, a number of land use entitlements
and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as
part of this project. Applications for development of Subarea 1 have been submitted;
applications for development of Subarea 2 would be submitted in the future, but the
proposed development is assumed for purposes of this Initial Study. These
entitlements and approvals are described in more detail below.
Ge�2eral Plan A»ierid�fierit: Existing General Plan laild use designations on Subarea 1
have been requested to change from "Estate Residential" and "Open Space" to a
combination of "Single Family Residential" and "Open Space." The General Plan is
also proposed to be changed in the future from "Open Space" to "Single Family
Residential" for Subarea 2. Exhibit 6 shows existing and proposed General Plan land
use designations for these subareas.
Plari�ied Develop»ierit Rezojiing witl7 related Stage 1 a�id Stage 2 Developme��it Pla�2. A
Stage 1 and 2 Rezoning and Development Plan is proposed for Subarea 1. A future
Planned Development rezoning would be required for Subarea 2
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
� Site Develop��ze�2t Review. An application for a Site Development Review perinit has
been filed for Subarea 1 to approve building architecture, materials, colors,
landscaping, fencing and other design issues. Site Development Review approval is
also required for the proposed future dwelling on Subarea 2.
Tentative subdivision �riaps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin
to create individual building lots on the two project areas.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
SAN PABLO
4 Martinez 4
8AV
.57f1 80 680 Concord
Ratael
Richmand
580
MI�� 101
Valley � Walnut
za Creek
Berkeley
�
680
�
Oaktand
seo
San Francisco ��a�eaa
5 n N San
Leandro
� DUBLIN
f RANCISCO aeo
seo
Daly
� Ciry Livermore
B A Y
toi
n Pleasanton
Hayward
, 92
�
280
San Mateo Fremoni
n �,
i Newark
O Redwood
City
� Hali � d
Moon
Bay Palo
(p Alto
� eeo
� 85 ioi
6B0
280 Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
San
Jose
toi
17
Exhibit 1
REGIONAL LOCATION
CITY OF DUBLIN
SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT o z 4 6 8 70 miles
CEQA ADDENDUM
Fa'lon Rd.
I '
,\ _
S•—'� x �.
y�y � � � �
Z J �
Z
��,z Q W
c\� •� �
° N � c r_
� a �
�,o � �
¢\Q � W O N
�'; � �- -' I
assajara Rd. �j W W
�,\ �..r'�� � Q �
% o � �
��,j �
z
Q� o
� ��w �
�__ �
Q=� Hacienda Dr. w
` �'w� J
d
` "' Amold Rd. LL
� .,................ O
` � ¢ �oo >
� � `¢� i—
; w ¢ ow� �
v^� U
w 2 LL°? ¢
• � 2 �'.....""'... �
` �' ' a
� Q �
Y � :�
` �
a
` I
Dougherry Rd.
O ` � ,o
� �
a c
� n�
z
0
a
�
� d
O Pymo�A
San
�
U ` �
`
� � �• '1 .-�
� �
�\ f
�,,i' "� �
�j�°� j� o
�PP�.��P �
G%F�P d
I � U
� U � Z Z
I � = �s m � =
in � a ow W
/ LL {y O
� Q Q
/ �. = a
�= U w�
U c� c�
/ ' �
� � a
�
=__ ' o
;' �-- \ ; M m
� ' \�; ; s �
, ,
,
,,- i -
, - ----�,
, ; � I�
� �
;, .
: ; � �� x �-
. _---------
/�l/ -�'� '/ �i`%"�\,�`�, II �' W �
�� � -----� -- _ �I� �
, ,.- �� �-� �---�; o
�� � � '' a
/%% � - _������ - � ;,�'���
��---%_/ �� __ `� ��, �� \.
� i jf`f Y� •,�-, -��,\ :� ,
/` \
�I ���� ' \ /,�__�'f' �� 1\ \ '\ ,� �� �,
�/ � �,/� ,,' � , � , ; � � � �;.
�� �� ..� �� r i �_ i � 'j A_ A���
�0� —� � �.� � �,� �A ��
l � � � � %� �� v
� �,� �:; / `��° ,r� )�� i� ^�\p✓�
� � 4
:
� ��ti_, � � '\ � �.'�.��__ \�/ �: /
�%. � /�� / � �� r�� - /1 >'
�� �� �'/ ��� `.� - .� ,' �'
,'d ' �a �/ � _ � �i;s'/,'�' .r��rl�6,
�"" i�� @F % � _ - ,�f,.; \ � '/ y� �.
� y// '- �/ i Jti 4
i j;� ��,- ?�`- )�,i;.
� � �
�� �� �, ��'1 t %`j ��ji,r '�
� �� � � ,` -> N l' ��� ��1��:�
i ; �r .. 1, �
� � ^�l1i �` `' ; � h�,,S �f _\\�`.p. � /
� �wni Y.' � �'" ��yY� •ry J ( I � v �
� ♦r1/ � � � � / 1♦y � i! � �'.
^I � �/ i /� � -/ l!
� � / i . � � �
�
/ / �>C,��` �=
-----�_%� � ��� � � .c,=�
� r � ��`
� - ; �. q ���;�� �; �; '� � �, �i���;��� _
, _ �,�� � � C�;�� �.
i — �� � ���I 1 I ����
� � � .y;� (���T`,
� i <' , �r ;� ��a � ��l%�°%,,
� J�J � --�� \�y v}1'' i�,'
r � ,C � ���'S'�:..,1� l��'�.
��. � `'✓� j �111�'L��i
�., ce� (,,.` /o "• �`------��',��`�a�:'.
, ,;;" ,��\�`�—��1� �
r��,.� �� ,/'� v
' '. )y � ' � 1 _ �,��/�/ ^< �� O
� � ���'�� � � ' � h
� f�y9r� �y� � �� ' � !g J/; _�-_� � �� .�
RT�� ' � / \ I �
•�� �' % � � � �� � �i� N
���' i/ l �� . .� %��' � W
i % � �
/ , � ci 0
$ — �
� � _
� � � Q U
�L s � � r ' � � J Q �
e� ` \ 6� � � 9 s � � Z
jl� � • � � � W o
x \ i✓ � cn �y �y o
,p�,,,, W
� ��� � U � Q a
,, 2 } = Q
_
/ " .__ _ � U (n U
�-, �; �
, i; p w
�- "i - ` >
i q p
� �i �Tti� I _�z .. t � � ss �
� , k_ '[ � `��' > u d Q .—�
�_ � \� � '� F j � � � 3 �e F„ r
�� g�' In _3"� � c £� y�° g �p <�� �� � �o ,� �� B 0� Z �C
�J I I a °R" �'���,` � �=o k�¢� & � � c��d � t< Llj i�
I ' ,� ° c � 8� �S @�� E b 3�E€ � .�� �m R 9 6 Ty``� �m�`
�' ml_�' >-e � 3 � ���nn' � ��s�a�z�� , �� °°90 e�e��e '�'�� ~ �
—_ _. }Ilzz � ��o�L _ �z ��g� ��F �g�m �� �a���� �"g��m F�ba�� ��Rbc � �
�„ _;$ a�_� �' Z �
I';'I> <�j' __ ¢ - ¢ �gs����� as�a�an��§�a�$� R�mB� �����: �'ea� `� �..
�,i � � � c� � � �+ '� �9' � H
- '`� ,!� _/;�; �, v c� LL' � +�" �5e� �bkq� t (n a
/ � Z � � a �3 < Q
Y � ��J0// �v c - w �pp g � ����n �3�g� X
%J Y �;Io .. � � � d s� 3¥� ff ARR ����`3�e<� Ei W � G
� //� _:,� _ �� k: � � � ��� ���a� j 4�9's� �_€������ �F
� .Y,��{:' �+z ,�� ��1 _, d � � ae�i� g��§:��e ����� ��:��3a����„ W C�
�y �� �-��,��� - � � .na_d ____- __ _ � _ ° (n Q
,�c?���� - ;lm � �
_ .�:��� �= ,I
° a t-
�,:;;��::'Q, i I __ O
;� �_ � � , ' � � �8�� n°�.
� � �,i i �
� Q � o
Z Z N � �
w ; a �
� o
�.�
wl X � q
� w � � $ �y� '� ��5 � a � � � �� �gef �� / i . I � �� ` . ..
g 3 � ff � ����g F � � � 5 • '.E .:./ � . ,,ti,\.� . .
� w � xssa�rW� � � 's � � �� �'�.. � f'� I�
/,, f ��\
� � —, _ / �`_�� `^�N ;\
i� �J I � 11' �
/ n / �"b y(�.°a �'+� ".'�� �
l � \`
R� �-u
;� j 1 � A: � �,�. �� _ � � i
i' �� � 'b° � ,� "
k: �h f
4
� r.� ' �+ � :. 'A _�, � , w� p � � �
/ 1\ b n b: Et I �-��F � �
I ' � I I
.// ,f.` W � �� 4 � ^ .� �
1
F� �� �. � J I � �,. � x 3 k�� I J �
Q �: �`,. aar .
x; ` \ 1 I
�__ � � �
li ���- M �� � �G;�1� � � �:�w�� i
p °' Y�� � :�¢.' 1�11.
! I''� q n� I �\° �aa r w�Jli �� T � '.¢ k �
� �IQ�' � �� °�= U�--L— � � I I I
� i � � ° � �,
�r� I �� � ��_ � \ � ��' � 5� '�i�. o�fl �'p 1,.�:dl I I �.�
t � �.� ¢ ��� � � y � .��
��� � 0.� � � � �a `� �g' !„ �'�I� � � j
j yI ���' I Y + ORR � T'hb� �Q I I'
��:I � ..�.� � �� P =� �s �� .�d. y '�� �!a �..
�' � 1 I 'I �b� &° �l 1 "l,t
�.u� I -�' 'I � � i� 'A � � _� \ s� 4� _'1 I �
I �' ' , � I
�
� I� I i � 6 � � �' �
� `� .� f�i � i ..? ��� . Rs �Ri �°j+ �rni.°'.. . 1 .�1�1 1�,��� � N
v- •�'� 4_ J T.�I la �M�= 1 r l(") /,
i�t%� ��'" � ',1�` i ^ O
��AI`��.., �a� � I � ^ a
,'� � � I�,l ��e� � I ? ; i o U
R I
� '
;��x
1 � Q
� 1 t i$�� �;r�� s I � Z Z
: � , ,w� I { � � J Q� �
�I LJ
F
r�' r� ` ;j� �I `�" r � � � �C z
�1� � I i, � � � 0 ll1 W
s ,9�`, j �y �y, ❑
1' ' ,- J W � W pQ
I s� , ",-- � � = a
— cy
���" o �" U w
�.'� c� U cA c�
\ S
� t�� /
� �z k.` \��.,
,-Nr � ��� �� �\ �
� `�_ , �'cc� o_
; � CoT. ;p ' o � ��� .``_�
_ ' �-I,yE.�� �;�� ,
���`�! 'o .- <ai `\:� \,�"`�.'`
U � ` . . ,
` O \
..J � `�`+�'1 /�rs � ` �i'C,.
.,�-��� �� �N\ 9 � ,� \ .
. ] �1�. -`/ `��.L�j � `0� c� '�\
` -• "��°"� � :-� .� . � �``. �y 4 �°'c�yF o � ��� '`�•a
�
� ,p�'� �%'' � � . \ � - �==-� T�i//y� °' .,
W` �`�� J�"`-" /" �- �_�— \�\
,1N� � !�- � � � ��� �`t � -_
;. ..ALOS . . . . .� � ..� --�lti'kW.� . �.�`�` �.
� .�"�� _� .�.� O�' 7�_ ��
70 �
"14t'JJ l0 1i �� �IrWo :CD�G---.�'��Uryp� \` ---'--
. _ . `. .J 2 {����LIN—� -
t o ti /''� I :`�
�� � ���r''� - 1� _ � O / �.! �� 1 � \
_ . � ��..-�� -��.-Y' _ �� !�� � - � ��� �
. . ��r , .,� n.
. �/�� .l� /,. � 150��a1 . �. 1\ ��
�j � � \.
!/ V"'_� ro e� sb ` s:3 Ex. toT ;o ��r`r:nv� r�,,� � .
� s� �F� � v � �,:
o � �
� �Cq�.�
NEW LOT 7�-A �O1 UNE ' . ��/' �I . ,zt,, '•
�_�__. ' 'SOP Of 9ANK -- -----���� . � Y-,-,,.�/ � ,��_�.
O v
�__^ r EX. ���fi�b _ ; .. . .
D�aT i .� ip.4
. �� ��� �����
�` �G�F :°o
�. LEGEPID. `� � �" �
� CX. LGl' 7U - -- --..._. �
� 7
^� .o io ao ao NEN�LOT 70 � ��, /
NEW I.OT 70-A �_..-.. � \ �
(avf�rl \ ��•
.\
SOURCE:Isakson&Assoc. Inc., 8-7-2072.
Exhibit 5
CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED FINAL MAP
SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT (Subarea 2)
CEQAADDENDUM
% � Z
�
� � � �— � ao
' �� \\\ 'I Q Q
�`� / ---- _� �� �i � Z
; , -,
;, � � �
, � ca W C')
�� /� ---------- _� I� •'= Z (n
/� �%� �� II � � u1 W
\\. � /�i' ---- ��' `� lill ' � (3 0
; � � �---��; W � W
\� / 1 / I 'I W �
/ j , "���'�� ' ',;\.' � (n
�� . , � � \��`\\, O �
'�^�\�- �� �� - y--- `�� , ;� ���`�;. � a
x� �� � -, �� � .,t A � J
—%� j ?1, ��'�., � . - \\ \ ,� �-
A / ��.� 1 \ \� `��:/\�.Y
. \
/ / � I
/l�� �_i � ,.
/���/ - / / ��` ��1`: :�
/' \� {
..��Q,/ , A � , \
�' ��'°�`��. ,,��'' �p ;/� .� � � � � ` ;J
i i °`��, `z� . 'i�— � � ii�� �`\� .�; /;� \�,_
� / �,���� ,�� 1 _ � i� .
� � � �> �� 4', �� �-:'��__ � , ' �
�%� ,�� � � ��� �� - �� 1� i,�� �
� � v �/ (__� ,!, T-� / �:
�° � -��__� �" � J l,r
�� , '� �� /� / r�� �'` T�.�' s �� /•
�* ;� �� i ;� ��,:� _ ���� r,�;�}�'�
r,�
, � �' _ , � � ��� _ ✓f��,;
/ �� �� � y y��.:V �/ r
,_ � H /� ti,� �i� �,« � ��r �.f �' �
a � ,�,� ; / �� �� �°-. ��j �:
N �' � ,<�-', ' y� �.`� �' ,"� *�.--,�,..-. ,.' -
� ��/ `�' .Y: ` jro„�'� f f�C `�i.
'� .-a ir= .�' � � r \��
� � � ��/ � ``�`�,r �` '�,,'-�
�c�L _-�-�/ '� '� � '� ��� \
� � / � � �� -
'y�
� � - - -� ����� � �, `1 ,���s -
Qfn �_"� �.✓ ., � ���� '� 1�� �h\n'��
�� ----� )�v � � �/���'��J \ '' ':.I
� O %� -�� ��'. ,�i' ;`���• ��� � � �� �� �
� ��' m .�1;�J� ����<'����
,� p % � ,� �,, ,>" � V�`� ��1 �!
c � 1d` r
w a � < ,o \ ��?� i�(���r
� ,� a � 1�� �i�1�.
' " � ,; �� >% � � �`��_ __ 4`��4.I�1;��
, ��_� _y,,,
����� ,;ry;,���� � '.
,_ ,=� � ; ���. / � �
, :��,,,;' �� ,/ • � , , ,� I
', �f`„Jy ;' �',�` ��\� ,�
� '��``, % � ��/ � 1
%�� `�- � � —;, o
., i� � ,4_ �� � �%/ � w
—_J l '� � � /� c O
$ Y F �V �
-: x � � �`� ° a
_
� � . _, � " � m `� V
'i �
�'' � n a�4 ZZ
% d cn c O �2S
����`Z— s � � �
� � r. ` :°. � y + o "J � 7
� a,. i N a a.m cn m 0
\��\� ' � W O N Y � � Z
� � ; �+ o � ° ❑ I,u w
} a?? �y ly O
a / �� ( '`, � in ° y lii �J O
/ '-/� W a� � O a a
� C'� � `` � H V �
< _ cn U cA c�
1. Project description: Res�.ibdivision of portions of Schaefer Ranch Tract
6765 to create 13 additional residential lots on Subarea
1 of Unit 3. One otller residential lot would also be
created (Subarea 2). Land use entitlements applicable
to Subarea 1 include a General Plan Amendment, a
Planned Development rezoning, Site Development
Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Final
Maps. A future General Plan Amendment, Planned
Development rezoning, Site Development Review
and Final Map would be required for Subarea 2.
2. Lead agency: City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
3. Contact person: Michael Porto
Consulting Planner
(925) 833 6610
4. Project locations: Subarea 1: Along Schaefer Way, west of the cul-de-sac
terminus of Dublin Boulevard; Subarea 2: terminus of
Ridgeline Place
5. Project sponsor: Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC, attn: Doug Chen
6. General Plan designations: Existi�lg: Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du./ac.) & Open
Space (Subarea 1 only)
Open Space (Subareas 2)
Proposed: Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dt1./ac.) &
Open Space (Subarea 1)
Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du./ac.) (Subarea 2)
7. Zoning: Existin�: PD-Planned Development- Estate Residential
& Open Space (Subarea 1); PD-Open Space (Subarea
2)
Proposed: PD-Planned Development
8. Public agency required approvals:
• Approval of Amendment to the General Plan (City of Dublin)
• Approval of PD-Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1
& Stage 2 Development Plan (City of Dublin)
• Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin)
• Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin)
� Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD)
• Approval of building permits (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 13
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
• Approval of a Grading Permit (City of Dublin)
City of Dublin Page 14
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Environinental 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 Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology/Water - Land Use/
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population/
Housin
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation/
Circulation
- Utilities/Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
� Si nificance
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 a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
_I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the
environznent and a Addendum will be prepared.
_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 potentially significant effect, or
a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, 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 the earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is required, but it 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 pursuant to
City of Dublin Page 15
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed
Project. An Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Iinpact Report will
be prepared.
/ �
Signature: �'� ��'��� � � Date: �°( Z ���
Printed Name: ��v�! �vv-!� � For: � uf ��lL-
��
City of Dublin Page 16
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the
parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,
then the checklist answers inust indicate whether the impact is potentially
significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant
Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from
"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,
"Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for
review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "No New Impact," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for
the project.
City of Dublin Page 17
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
iilfornlation sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances,
etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is
substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other
sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats;
however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist
that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or
threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures
identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Envirol7mental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of
sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact).
Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/
follOwillg the cheCklist. Significant Significant Significant No Ne�v
Impact With Impact Impact
Mitigation
1. Aesthetics. Would tlze project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a sceilic X
vi sta?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not IiinitPd to trees, rock X
outcroppings and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of tl�e site and its X
surroundings? (Source: 3)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day o X
►Iighttime views in the ai-ea? (Source: 3)
2. Agricultural Resources. Wocr�ld the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance,as show
on the maps prepared pursuant to the X
Fai-mland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency,to a
non-agricultural use? (Source: 1 , 3)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture
use or a Williamson Act contract? (1) X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC
Sec. 12220(�), timberland (as defined in X
PRC Sec. 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined in PRC
Sec. 51104 (g)? (Source: 1 , 3)
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use? (1, 3) X
e) Involve other changes in the existin�
environment that, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of X
farmland to a non-agricultural use or
conversion of forestland to a non-forest
use? (Source: 1, 3)
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
-�
Potentially Less Th�n j Less than No Impact/
Significant Sig»ifica»t Si�nificant No New
Impact With I�npact Impact
Mitigation
3. Air Quality (Where avail�ble,the sigi�ificance
criteria established by the applicable air
quality management district may be relied
on to make tl�e following determinations).
Wocrld tlie project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air qualiry plan? (Source: 1, 5) X
b) Violate �ny air quality stai�dard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air X
quality violation? (Source: 1,4)
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any ci-iteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an X
applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors? (l,4)
d) Expose sensitive i°eceptoi-s to substantial X
pollutant concentrations? (3)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X
substantial number of people? (3)
4. Biological Resources. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, X
sensitive or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,3)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional X
plans, policies or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1, 3)
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X
(including but not limited to marsh, vernal
pool,coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological intei-l-uption or other
means? (1,2, 3)
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/
Significant Significant Si;nificant No Ne�v
Impact WiCh Iinpact Impact
Mitigation
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 X
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? (3)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances �
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance? (4)
� Conflict with the provision of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other X
approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan? (Source: 4)
5. Cultural Resources. Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the
significance of a historical resource as X
defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource X
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1)
c) Directly or i�ldirectly destroy a unique
paleontological i�esource or unique geologic X
feature? (Source: 1)
d) Distui-b any human remains, including those
interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1) X
6. Geology and Soils. Would tlze project
a) Expose people or structures to poteiztial
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 X
Geologist or based on other known evidence
of a known fault? (Source: 1,4)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1,4) x
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X
liquefaction? (Source: l,4)
iv) Landslides? (Source: 1,4) X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X
topsoil? (Source: l,4)
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less Tl��n Less than No Impact/
Significant Si�nificant Significant No Ne�v
Impact With lmpact Impact
Mitigation
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 X
on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (4)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (Source: 4)
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systeins where sewers X
are not available for wastewater disposal?
(4)
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would tlze
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,that may have a X
significant impact on the environment? (4)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of X
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would
tl7�e project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, X
use or disposal of hazardous materials? (l,
3)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the X
release of hazardous into the environment?
(3)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials, substances, or waste X
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school? (Source: 1, 3)
City of Dublin Page 22
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less T11an Less than No Impact/
Significant Significant Significant No Ne���
Impact With Impact Impact
Miti;ation
d) Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites complied
pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 X
and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment? (4)
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airpart or X
public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? (Source: 4)
f) For a project witllin the vicinity of private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the X
project area? (Source: 4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with the adopted emerge»cy
response plan or emer�ency evacuation X
plan? (Source: 1,4)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant
i-isk of loss, injuiy or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(2, 3)
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would tlie
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste x
discharge requirements? (Source: 1,2)
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 X
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 peimits have been granted)?
(Source: 1,2)
City of Dublin Page 23
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less Th�n Less than No Impact/
Significant Significant Significant No Ne���
Impact With Impact Impact
Mitigation
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or X
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site? (Source: 1,2)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or areas, including through
the alteration of a course or stream or river, X
or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: l,
2)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (Source: 1, 2)
� Otherwise substantially degrade water X
quality? (Source: 1,2)
g) Place l�ousing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X
delineation map? (Source: 1,4)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which impede or i•edirect flood X
flows? (Source: 1,4)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, and death involving X
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failui�e of a levee or dam? (Source: 1, 2)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? X
10. Land Use and Planning. Would tlie project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: l, 3) X
City of Dublin Page 24
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less T11an Less than No Impact/
Significant Significai�t Sigilificant No New '
Impact With Impact � linpact
Mitigation
b) Conflict with any app(icable land use plan, �
policy, or regulation of an agency with �
jui-isdiction over the project (including but X
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect? (Soui•ce: 1,2,4)
c) Conflict with ai�y applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural commw�ity X
conservation plan? (Source: 1,2,4)
11. Mineral Resources. Would tlze project
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to X
the region and the residents of the state? (1)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific X
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1)
12. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in X
the �eneral plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (1,3)
b) Exposure of persons or to �eneration of
excessive groundborne vibration or X
groundborne noise levels? (Source: 1,3)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above X
existing levels without the project? (1)
d) A substantial temporaiy or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? (1) X
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 X
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working n the
project area to excessive noise levels? (4)
City of Dublin Page 25
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
� Potentially Less'Thai� Less [l1a❑ No Impact/
� Significant Significant Signi�ficant No Ne��v
Impact With Im�act Impact
Mitigation
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people ( X
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (4)
13. Population and Housing. Would the project �
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area,either directly or indirectly (for X
example,tllrough extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? (1, 3)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of X
replacement housing elsewhere? (1, 3)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the replacement of housing X
elsewhere? (Source: 1, 3)
14. Public Services. Would tlze proposal:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
�overnmental facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant environmei�tal
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
perfoi-mance objectives foc any of the public
services? (Source: 1,2)
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities X
15. Recreation:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial X
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
(Source: 1,2)
City of Dublin Page 26
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/
Significant Significant Significant No Ne�v
Imp�ct With Impact Impact
� Mitigation
16. Transportation and Traffic. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the X
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation, including mass
transit and all non-motorized ti-avel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths and
mass transit? (Source: 1, 2)
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including but not
limited to, level of service and travel X
demand measures, ot• other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?_(Source: 1,2)
c) Result ii1 a change in air tT-affic patterns,
including either an increase ii� traffic levels X
or a change in location that i�esults in
substantial safety risks? (Source: 1,4)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as
farm equip�nent? (Source: 2)
e) Result i�i inadequate emergency access? (2) X
� Conflict with adopted policies, plans or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle or
pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the X
performance of safety of such facilities? (1)
17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would tlie
project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality X
Control Board? (Source: 2)
City of Dublin Page 27
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less than No Lnpact/
Significant Si�nific�nt Significant No New
Impact With Impact Impact
Mitigation
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (2)
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities,the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental
effects? (2)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project fi�om existing water X
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (2)
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the providers existing
commitments? (Source: 2)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
peimitted capacity to accommodate the X
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X
and regulations related to solid waste? (2)
18. 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
di-op below self-sustaining levels,threaten to X
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number of or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or anima] or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
City of Dublin Page 28
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Potentially Less Than Less than i No ImpacU
Significant Si�nificant Significant No Ne�v i
Impact With Impact Impact
Miti�ation
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable° X
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 environmei�tal effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects X
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Sources used to determine pote�ltial environmental impacts
1. Schaefer Ranch Final EIR
2. Discussion with City staff or service provider
3. Site Visit
4. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
The following EIR was used in the preparation of this Initial Study: "Final
Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Ainendment"
WPM Planning Team, April 1996, SCH #95033070.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the certified Schaefer
Ranch EIR which was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project of which the proposed
project is a part. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains mitigation measures which apply to
this project. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR for
potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
The Schaefer Ranch EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study
pursuant to the standards in CEQA Guideline Section 15150. A copy of this EIR is
available to the public for review at the Dublin Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza,
Dublin CA during normal business hours.
City of Dublin Page 29
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, t11is Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any ne�N or substantially increased significant impacts of the
project which were not evaluated in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and which would require
additioilal environmental review.
City of Dublin Page 30
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Settin�
The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a mix of rugged ridges and canyons,
woodland, open grasslands and rock outcroppings. Pursuant to previous approvals
granted by the City of Dublin, portions of the overall Schaefer Ranch property have
been graded and recontoured to accommodate residential development allowed
pursuant to the Dublin General Plan, zoi�ing and other land use entitlements.
Although a substantial portion of the Schaefer Ranch property has been graded, other
portions have either been preserved as permanent open space or open space preserves
have been created on the site to replace special-status species habitat that has been
impacted.
No trees, rock outcroppings or other natural features exist on any of t11e subareas.
Subarea 2 provides views of undeveloped hillsides within the unincorporated portions
of Alameda County west of Schaefer Ranch from the terminus of Ridgeline Place.
Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of Schaefer
Ranch.
Several light sources exist within the project area due to the presence of streetlights and
building lights, although no light sources are located on any of the two Subareas.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identifies significant impacts and mitigation measures to
reduce anticipated visual resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. Applicable
iznpacts and mitigation measures include:
• Impact 5A identified a significant impact with regard to alteration of the site
character. This impact noted extensive landform alteration on the Ranch,
including ridgeline removal, filling of canyons and creation of an urban
landscape. Mitigation Measure 5A.1 requires approval of a subsequent grading
plan for the property that relies on inatching natural contours to the extent
feasible, limitations on the extent of grading and preservation of existing trees.
Mitigation measure 5.A.2 requires approval of a master landscape plan for each
phase of the project, �Nith special provisions for visually sensitive areas, use of
appropriate plant materials adjacent to natural open space areas, use of plants to
screen buildings and development of a long-term landscape maintenance
program.
• Impact 5B noted a significant impact of proposed project construction on the
Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park and I-580 freeway south of the site. Development of
the project site would change the visual character from both of these viewpoints.
Mitigation Measure 5.B.1 requires planting of landscaping, placement of berms
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
and use of setbacks to substantially reduce the impact of the project from the I-
580 freevvay and the Rowell Ranch facility. Mitigation Measure 5.B.2 requires
that future site grading be accomplished to reduce visual iinpacts. Mitigation
Measure 5.B.3 requires the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City for
the commercial component of the project to ensure that future structures are
screened from view and signs are controlled.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project.
Project Im�acts
a) Have a substantic�l c�dverse irnpact or2 a scenic viste�? No New Impact. Approval and
implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or inore
significant impacts than identified in the 1996 EIR regarding scenic vistas. Both
subareas are in areas assumed for developinent in the 1996 EIR and thus are not
part of a scenic vista from offsite or onsite public vantage points. A pro�osed
General Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning would convert
Subarea 2 from an open space designation to a residential designation that would
allow construction of one single family dwelling. The lot is located between two
similarly sized residential lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. Redesignating Subarea 2
from open space to residential use �vould somewhat reduce public views to open
spaces to the west, but views would still be partially available even with
construction of a home under applicable single family development standards.
There are also other, more expansive public views to the west. Because of the
location of the lot in relation to neighboring lots and the limited views from the
cul-de-sac, the proposed project impact would not be substantial. A potential
condition of project approval will require that the future residence on this site be
constrLlcted iinmediately behind the existing dwelling on Ridgeline Place to
allow for a scenic corridor of undeveloped lands west of the site. Overall, no new
or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic vistas than
were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b) Substc��itic�lly de�anage sce�iic resources, i�TCludir2g visuc�l resoi���ces withirT state scenic
higliwc�y? No New Impact. The two subareas have been fine graded as part of the
mass grading of the overall Schaefer Ranch. None of the sites are located within
view of a state scenic highway (I-580) and none contain significant scenic
resources, including but not limited to major rock outcroppings, major stands of
trees or bodies of water. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts
would occur with regard to scenic resources than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
c) Subs�a�Ttic�lly degrade ex2sting visual cliaracter or the quality of tlie site? No New
Impact. The proposed project would include replacing vacant estate residential
lots with single-fainily dwellings (Subarea 1) and a vacant open space lot with a
single-family dwelling (Subarea 2). The 1996 EIR analyzed the impact of altering
the entire Schaefer Ranch from a rural area to a more urbanized development.
T11e overall type and character of land uses included the proposed project would
have approximately the same impacts on Subarea 1 as the current General Plan
residential land use designations. Subarea 2 has already been graded for
residential development. No new or more severe significant impacts would
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
occur with regard to degradation of the scenic character of the project area than
�Nere analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
d) Crec�te liglit or glare? No New Impact. Both Subareas are vacant and contain no
light sources. Construction of the proposed project would add additional light
sources in the form of streetlights as well as new housing and yard lights. The
1996 EIR analyzed light and glare impacts on residential uses across Scllaefer
Ranch, and identified significant impacts where commercial or public facilities
would be located near residences. No commercial or lighted public facilities are
near the Subareas so there would be no impact. The added light sources in
Subarea 1 would be in an area assumed for residential development in the 1996
EIR so would cause no new impact. The added light sources for Subarea 2 would
be from a single home and would be integrated into an existing residential
neighborhood. The proposed single dwelling would not have the potential to
generate significant light or glare. Under these circumstances, there would be no
new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Environmental Settin�
The Schaefer Ranch, including the two Subareas, was historically used for agricultural
production and a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract was in effect on the
Schaefer Ranch at the time the 1996 EIR was prepared and certified. Since then, the
Williamson Act Contract no longer exists on the Schaefer Ranch. The Ranch is no longer
in agricultural production and has been substantially converted to residential uses as
envisioned in the Dublin General Plan. No forests or forestry production exist on either
Subarea.
The Schaefer Ranch site is zoned Planned Development, which is not an agricultural
zoning district.
Scllaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR noted that the project site was identified as a farmland with
only grazing importance, not prime farmland, due to the relatively steep topography of
the Schaefer Ranch property.
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following less-than-significant impacts associated
with agricultural resources: Impact 3.5A, discontinuance of on-site agricultural uses,
Impact 3.5B, loss of on-site farmland and Impact 3.5C, cancellation of a Williamson Act
contract on the property.
Impact 3.5D was identified as a potentially significant impact. This impact noted
impacts on adjoining agricultural lands adjacent to the Schaefer Ranch. These impacts
included predatory dogs from suburban dwellings harassing livestock and odor
impacts from grazing and livestock keeping onto proposed dwellings. Mitigation
Measure 3-12 required disclosure of ongoing grazing for future project residents.
Mitigation Measure 3-13 required enforcement of leash laws for dogs. Mitigation
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Measure 3-14 required disclosure to future homeowners of the presence of flies and
odors froin agriculhxral and livestock keeping. Mitigation Measure 3-15 required
installation of fencing around grazing areas.
Pro�ect Im�acts
a-c) Convert�rime far�filand to a rion-c�gricultural use or irivolve otlTer changes which col.�ld
result in conversion of farr�llarid to a no�i-agricultural us, including conflicts with
agricitltit��al zonirig c�nd Williamson Act contracts? No New Impact. The overall
Schaefer Ranch project site has been graded for urban uses pursuant to current
General Plan land use designations and current zoning. No agricultural uses or
zoning remain on the site and the Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement
formerly on the site has been terminated. No new or more significant impacts
would therefore occur with regard to agricultural resources beyond those
analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The project applicant will be required to comply with
mitigation measures included in the 1996 EIR, including: providing notifications
to future homeowners regarding protection of livestock (Mitigation Measure 3-
12) and the presence of nearby agricultural operations (Mitigation Measure 3-14).
Appropriate fencing to protect on-going livestock grazing is also required per
Mitigation Measure 3-15.
No agricultural operations exist on any of the subareas. No new or more severe
significant impacts beyond tllose analyzed in the 1996 EIR are anticipated.
d) Result ifi the loss of forest lc�rid or conversiori of forest land to a non forest use? No
forest land exists on the two Subareas and no impact would result with respect to
this topic.
e) Ilivolve otlier chariges wliich, di.�e to tlieir loccztion or rii�ture, could result of forest lrtnd to
a rzon forest use? See itenl "d," above.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Settin�
The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin
distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin
is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills
surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends
northward into Contra Costa County.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Scllaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated
air quality impacts from the development of the Schaefer Ranch. Applicable air quality
impacts and mitigation measures include:
� Impact 12A identified a significant impact with regard to temporary increases in
dust and particulate emissions during earthmoving operations. Mitigation
Measure 12.A1 required implementation of dust control measures during site
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
grading earth moving and excavation operations to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. Such measures included were not limited to frequent
watering of graded areas, limiting speeds of construction vehicles on the site and
sweeping of public streets.
• Impact 12B found that emissions from construction vehicles would be a
potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.B.1, which
required limited idling of construction equipment and reduction of grading
activities during period of poor air quality, reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
• Impact 12 D identified a significant impact from regional pollutant emissions in
the form of increased vehicle trips to and from the project. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 12.D.1, implement control measures that are specified in
attainment plans, and 12.D.2, provide physical facilities i11 the project design
reduced regional emissions but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact
was therefore found to be significant and unavoidable.
• Impact 12E noted a potentially significant impact with regard to emission of local
carbon monoxide. Based on the analysis in the EIR, emission of carbon monoxide
was found to Ue below threshold levels and was a less-than-significant impact.
• Impact 12F, on-site fuel combustion, was identified as a potentially significant
impact and adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.F.1 reduced this impact to a less-
than-significant impact. This mitigation restricted installation of on-site fireplaces
or stoves to either gas burning units or units that have been EPA-approved.
Conventional open hearth fireplaces were not allowed.
• Impact 12G incl�rded a significant impact from miscellaneous dust sources
leaving the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.G.1, that required
adherence to the Bay Area Air Quality Management fugitive dust rules, reduced
this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed project is required to adhere to these existing mitigation measures and
current air quality regulations enforced by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD).
Project Im�acts
a) Would tlie project conflict with or obstruct impleme�2tatio�2 of c�n czir quc�lity plczri? No
New Impact. The BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan is based on population and growth
assumptions projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). For
the proposed project, the applicant is requesting a modification in the type of
residential units. As noted in the Project Description section of this Initial Study,
under the proposed project the overall number of dwellings on the overall
Schaefer Ranch site would be 420 units which would be less than the project
originally approved by the City of Dublin and analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 units).
Vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be slightly less than s
analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see analysis in the Traffic and Transportation section of
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
tlus Initial Study). The proposed project would therefore be generally consistent
with the Clean Air Plan and this would not represent a substantial change to the
project analyzed in the previous EIR. No new or more severe significant iinpacts
beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic.
b) Would the project violate a�iy c�ir quality standards? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR
identified regional pollutant emissions as Significant and Unavoidable impacts.
The project proposes residential development within the Schaefer Ranch area in a
manner consistent with the previous approvals on the site and within the
parameters of the 1996 EIR. This impact would remain significant and
unavoidable. Table 2 within the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial
Study demonstrates that the total daily vehicle trips would be approximately the
same as the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Also, the total number of additional
dwellings proposed as part of the project (14 units) is significantly fewer than the
number of dwellings identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
as having potentially significant air emissions (320 units), as shown on Table 6 of
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document. Therefore, regional pollutant
emissions from the proposed project would same or less and the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable as identified in 1996 EIR.
In terms of construction-level air quality impacts, as conditions of grading plan
approval by the City of Dublin, the applicant is required to have their grading
contractor undertake dust and wind-borne erosion control methods listed in
Mitigation Measure 12G.1 of the 1996 EIR, including covering of stockpiled
material, watering of graded sites and similar methods to meet BAAQMD
standards.
In terms of operational-level air quality impacts, the number of daily vehicle trips
are anticipated to Ue slightly less under the proposed project than the original 1996
project as demonstrated in Table 2 contained in the Traffic and Transportation
section of this Initial Sfiudy. Therefore, air quality emissions would be same or less
than documented in the 1996 project EIR.
As discussed above, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those
analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic.
c) Would the project result in curnulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact.
The proposed project would result in an increase of 14 single-family dwellings
from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the
current General Plan and Planned Development zoning and as was analyzed in the
1996 EIR. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch
development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in
the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact.
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrc�tions or create objectionable
odors? No New Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of 14
single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the
Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
and as was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The added d�vellings would not substantially
increase the overall Schaefer Ranch contribution to cumulative air pollution. No
new or inore severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR
would result regarding cuinulative air pollution. However, within the context of
the larger overall Schaefer Ranch development, regional pollutant emissions, as
identified in Impact 12 contained in the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a
significant and unavoidable impact.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Settin�
The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a number of biologically important biological
communities, including annul grasslands, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak
woodland, riparian woodland, freshwater emergency wetland and stock ponds. The
Schaefer Ranch has been mass graded to allow for urban development pursuant to
existing land use approvals, although portions of the Ranch have been preserved
and/or reconstructed as riparian habitat, oak tree preserve areas and other open space
areas to protect biological resources. None of the preserved areas are located within this
project area.
Subareas 1 and 2 have been included in a completed mass grading operation, approved
pursuant to a grading permit by the City of Dublin and therefore contain no trees,
creeks or other significant natural features.
Schlefer Raiuh EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified that the project site contained a number of significant
biological resources, including a stand of coast live oak trees, and cost live oak/bay
riparian vegetation mixed with annual grasslands.
The 1996 EIR contains a number of impacts and mitigation measures regarding
biological resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and
initigation measures include:
• Iinpact 6C identified loss of approximately 245 acres of grasslands as a
potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.C.1 required reseeding of
disturbed grasslands witll native grasses.
• Impact 6D noted a loss of oak woodlands and other heritage trees as part of the
development proposal, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure
6.D.1 required completion of a tree survey before grading and retention of
heritage class trees (18-inch diameter at 20 inches above grade) to the extent
feasible. Mitigation Measure 6.D.2 required implementation of protection
measures for trees that are to be preserved. Mitigation Measure 6.D.3 required
planting of replacement trees on the site at a ratio of 3 replacement trees for each
1 tree lost.
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
• Impact 6E identifies secondary impacts to native plants and wildlife, iilcluding
"escape" of non-native plants into the environinent and impacts to native
wildlife of doinestic pets. Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 required project landscape
plans to emphasize use of native plant materials. Mitigation Measure 6.E.2
required enforcement of Dublin's leash la�v. Even with adherence to these
measures, Impact 6E would remain significant and unavoidable.
• Iinpact 6F found that runoff of herbicide sprays could enter natural plant
communities and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 6.F.1 required restrictions of application of herbicides will
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
The proposed project will be required to adhere to these existing biological resource
mitigation measures.
Project Im�acts
a) Have a substantial adverse i1��t�act on a cc�ndidate, serisitive, or special-status s�ecies? No
New Impact. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of special status plant
and wildlife species that could occur on the Schaefer Ranch property. Since
certification of the 1996 and approval of the original land use entitlements, the
entire project site has been graded to accommodate future buildings and roads.
As required by Mitigation Measures 6.D.1, 6.D.2, and 6.D.3 contained in the 1996
EIR, surveys for sensitive tree species were completed, tree protection measures
provided for trees to be preserved and replacement trees planted for as part of
approved project landscaping.
As a result of mass grading of a majority of the Schaefer Ranch property, no
plant or wildlife species or habitats exist on the site. As required by Mitigation
Measure 1996 EIR C.6.1, a preconstruction survey was completed for burrowing
owl by the firm of LSA prior to commencement of grading activities (source:
project applicant 8/31/12) Therefore, approval and construction of the project
would not have new or more severe significant impacts on candidate, sensitive
or special-status plants or wildlife or their respective habitats beyond those
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b, c) Have a substc�ntic�l adve�•se i��ipc�ct on riparian lTabitat, other sensitive rzc�t�.tiral
corn�ni��Tities or federally�1�otected wetlarids? No New Impact No creeks, streams,
wetlands or waters of the United States or waters of the state were identified on
any portion of the two Subareas in the 1996 EIR. There would be no impacts with
respect to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected
wetlands. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with
regard to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected
wetlands than were analyzed in the previous EIR.
d) Irite�fere substal�tially with niovernent of native fisli or wildlife species? No New
Impact. No creeks or streams exist currently on the site so there would be no
interference with native fish migration. Proposed residences would be
constructed in areas planned and approved for residences and that have been
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
previously graded to remove suitaUle habitat for vvildlife migration. No new or
more severe significant impacts would therefore result �vith regard to
interference of fish or wildlife inovement than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
e) Corlflict witl2loc�l policies or orc�ina�ices protectirTg biological resources? No New
Impact. There v��ould be no conflicts and no impacts with any local policies
regarding biological resources should this project be approved and constructed.
Any trees formerly growing on the site were removed prior to or as part of the
mass grading of Schaefer Ranch. No new or more severe sigruficant impacts
would therefore result with regard to potential conflicts with local ordinances
protecting biological resources than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
f) Co�iflict with c�ny adopted Habitat Conservation Plalis or Nc�tural Com�nunity
Conservc�tio�2 Plans? The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County
Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the
Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public
projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a
resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to
permitting and initigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land
development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is
neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation
Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project
planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a
biologically effective manner. There would therefore be no new or more severe
significant impacts associated with this topic.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Settin�
A cultural resources survey of the Schaefer Ranch was undertaken as part of the 1996
EIR. Prehistoric findings were limited to one isolated chert flake and a possible bedrock
mortar which were not located on the project site. These finds were not conclusively
determined to be of prehistoric origins.
The two Subareas are vacant and contain no structures.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures regarding cultural resource
impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include:
• Iinpact 14A identifies a potential impact with regard to prehistoric resources that
may not have been identified in previous cultural resource surveys of the
Schaefer Ranch. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level by
adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1 that required work to stop within a 100-
foot radius of the discovery of any cultural resources and for the City to prepare
a work plan consistent with CEQA Guidelines to ensure that such resource is
City of Dubfin Page 39
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
properly evaluated and treated. If necessary, monitoring of this site by a
qualified archeologist may be required.
This mitigation measure will continue to apply to the proposed project.
Project Im�acts
a) Cause substa�ltial adver�se c1lc�nge to significant historic resource or�tT.«nc�n r�er�2ains? No
New Impact. No structures exist on the two Subareas so there would be no
impact with regard to historic resources. This would not represent a new or more
severe significant impact than previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b-d) Cause a substantic�l adverse i��ipc�ct or destruction to archeologicc�l, paleoritological
resources or 12t.��7i�n retfic�iris? No New Impact. Subareas 1 and 2 have been mass
graded and no significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological or Native
American remains were discovered. Minimal additional grading would be
required for building foundations and trenching for on-site utilities. Based on a
discussion with the project representative (pers. comm. D. Chen, 9/31/12) the
depth of such additional grading would be minor, approximately 10 feet into an
existing 100-foot deep fill area, and would not exceed the depths of completed
grading activities. Therefore, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1, there
would be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic
than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Settin�
Tl1e 1996 EIIZ noted the presence of several soil and geotechnical conditions on the
Scllaefer Ranch Site.
Colluvial soils, which are composed of clay and silty clay are found in ravines and
swales leading to main stream channels. Alluvial deposits are generally located in a
drainage course in the northern portion of the Ranch. A large portion of the Ranch was
underlain by historic landsides.
As noted in the Project Description portion of this Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch has
been substantially graded. Overall grading also remediated identified landslide areas
pursuant to oversight by registered geologists.
The Schaefer Ranch does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zone), as documented in the 1996 EIR. Major active faults in the
region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas,
Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of impacts and mitigation measures related
to soils and geology. The following are applicable impacts and mitigation measures that
will continue to apply to the current project:
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
• Impact 9A identified a significant impact related to mass grading of the Ranch,
which would have the effect of removing natural vegetation and wildlife habitat
as well as possibly causing landslides and slope failures. Mitigation Measure
9.A.1 required City approval of a grading plan consistent with City standards
and that also reduced visual impacts and satisfy geotechnical requirements.
Mitigation Measure 9.A.2 required that grading activities be balanced to
eliminate the need for off-haul of material.
• Impact 9B identified a significant impact with regard to slope stability, since
much of the pre-project soil conditions exhibited the presence of historic
landslides. Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 reduced landslide and slope
stability impacts to a less-than significant level. These measures required
remediation of historic landslides, control of surface and subsurface drainage,
removal of soils that are susceptible to "soil creep," establishment of setbacks
from landslide hazard areas, use of appropriate engineering designs to ensure
slope stability and formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to ensure
long-term maintenance of slope areas.
• Impact 9C found a significant impact with regard to erosion impacts of grading
activities off of the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.C.1 through 3
reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring adherence to a
site-specific erosion control plan, implementing erosion control measures during
construction and incorporating permanent erosion control measures into the
development, including creek bank revetments and slope seeding.
• Impact 9D identified an impact with regard to fill settlement. The 41.5-acre site
has already been filled consistent with Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 9.D.5.
None of the three project subareas are affected by this Mitigation Measure.
• Impact 9E identified an impact related to expansive and corrosive soils.
Expansive soils could damage building foundations and other improvements
due to shrinking and swelling of clay soils. Corrosive soils could impact
underground utilities, foundations and concrete in contact with soil. Mitigation
Measures 9.E.1 through 3 are included in the EIR to reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant leveL These measures required geotechnical investigations for
shrink-swell potential, special foundation designs to deal with expansive soil and
control of moisture content to minimize soil shrinking and swelling.
• Impact 9F identified an impact related to seismic hazards, including strong
ground shaking and possible surface rupture. Secondary seismic effects could
include landsliding, liquefaction and soil lurching. Adherence to Mitigation
Measures 9.F.1 through 3 reduced seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level.
Tl�ese measures included completing detailed analyses of seismic hazards for
individual development projects to evaluate the effects of groundshaking and
rupture as well as secondary effects and a determination of specific construction
techniques to minimize these effects. The mitigations also required incorporation
of earthquake resistant design for all structures and mapping of inactive faults in
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
the project area and incorporation of remedial measures for inactive faults on
project structt.ires.
The current project will be required to comply with the above geologic mitigation
measures.
Project Im�acts
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impc�cts, including loss,
injury or death relafed to ground rupture, seisrnic ground shaking, grour2d failure, or
landslides? No New Impact. The potential for impacts related to ground-based
seismic hazards, specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or otller
ground failure was addressed in the 1996 EIR (Impact 9F) and adherence to
Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 3 reduced these impacts to a less-than-
significant level. To comply with these mitigation measures, a soils and geology
reports were completed by Alan Kropp & Associates (1997) and ENGEO (2004).
The reports include specific construction measures to minimize groundshalcing,
ground failure and landslides that have been followed for previous grading and
will be followed for future construction on the subareas. These reports are hereby
incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at
Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. These measures continue to
apply to this portion of the Schaefer Ranch development project. There would
therefore be no ne�v or more severe significant impacts with regard to seismic
impacts than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b) Is tlze site sl.�bject to substantial e�rosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact.
Refer to Hydrology section 8a for a discussion of this topic.
c,d) Is tlte site locczted on soil tlzat is unstczble or expc�nsive or result iri potentic�l lateral
sprec�ding, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. The 1996
EIR noted Impact 9E, expansive and corrosive soils, within the Schaefer Ranch
property. The 1996 EIR determined that with adherence to Mitigation Measures
9.E.1 through 3, iinpacts related to unstable and expansive soils, including lateral
spreading, liquefaction and similar hazards, were less-than-significant. Similarly,
adherence to 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 reduced impacts
related to landslide and slope stability to a less-than-significant level, as did
Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 5 related to fill settlement. The current project
would be residential and within the development areas included in the 1996 EIR.
With adherence to these and other soil and geology mitigations contained in the
1996 EIR, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard
to this topic than �vas analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
e) Have soils inec�pable of supporting on-site septie tanks if sewers are not c�vailc�ble? No
New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary
sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic
systems, as identified in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR.
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Settin�
Since certification of the EIR in 1996, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to
climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage
of AB 32 in 2006. Because the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, the determination
of whether greenhouse gasses and cliinate change needs to be analyzed for this
proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public
Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163).
Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those
standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was
not lazown and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified
as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change
impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIR; however, these impacts are not new
information that was not lazown or could not have been known at the time the Schaefer
Ranch EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses �Nas widely
known prior to the certification of the EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions
to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the
early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change v��ere
extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the
California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to
provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor
issued Executive Order # S-03-05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse
gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Schaefer Ranch
EIR in 1996. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in
a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of
the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA.
Project Im�acts
a,b Ge��ierc�te greeriliouse gc�s er�iissions, eitlier directly or indirectly, tlzat mc�y liczve a sig2�iifica��it
i�npact o�i t]ie ef2viron�rzent or cotiflict witli arz applicable plan, policy or regulation r�dopted for tlze
�t�rpose of reduci�lg tlie emissioris of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional
environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Settin�
The 1996 EIR noted that several areas of the Schaefer Ranch property were found to
contain hazardous and potentially hazardous materials, including areas contaminated
�vith petrochemicals associated with vehicle storage and maintenance, insecticide
residue from agricultural operations, refuse disposal sites and several power poles and
transformers that could contain PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a potentially hazard
substance).
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified one impact related to hazards and hazardous
materials. Impact 15A found that the potential presence of hazardous materials on the
Ranch property in close proximity to planned residential and similar uses would be a
significant impact. Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through 4 ��ere included in the EIR that
reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures call for removal of
hazardous inaterials, including electrical transformers with potentially hazardous
materials, abandonment and destruction of on-site wells and additional hazardous
materials analysis if found on the Schaefer Ranch during construction. These measures
have been completed.
Project Im�acts
a) Crec�te a sig�lifica�it hazc�rd to t]re public or t11e enviro�ir�ient t1i��ougli the routine trayzsport,
use or disposcrl of hazardous mate��ials? No New Impact. There would be i10 impact
with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the
proposed project involves construction of a residential development project.
Although a normal and customary amount of paint, solvents, lawn care chemicals
and similar substances would be used and stored within individual residences on
the project site, these would not be used, stored or transported in any significant
quantities. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with
respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in the Schaefer Raiuh EIR.
b) Create c� sig�iifi'cc�rit hazard to tlze public or tlie envi�ronrrient tlirough rec�so�ic�bly foreseeable
itpset c�nd accident co�lditions involving the release of hazardot.�s rnateric�ls into the
environmerlt? No New Impact. Schaefer Ranch has been graded and filled with
approximately 100 feet of fill material in specific areas. Prior to the grading
operation, the applicant was required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 of the 1996
EIR to remove hazardous materials from the site, remove above-ground electrical
power firansformer, close existing wells and septic system facilities and assess
other hazardous materials on the site. A site investigation was completed by
ENGEO, Inc. to fulfill this mitigation measure on June 19, 2008. This letter is
hereby incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at
Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. No new or more severe
significant impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
c) Emit hazardoi�s mc�terials or 1ia�2dle liazardous materials or acutely hazc�rdous mate��ials,
substarices, o�� waste witjiin one-que�rter rnile of an existing or proposed scl�ool? No New
Impact. No public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the
project site, based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities
Plan," published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts
Consulting, Inc.). Adherence to mitigation measures to remove any hazardous
inaterials on the site, as required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 contained in the
1996 EIR ensures that there will be no impact with regard to this topic. There are
therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than
was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
d) Is tlte site listed as �t hazardous �riaterictls site? No New Impact. The project site is not
listed by the State of California Department of Toxic SuUstances Control as an
identified hazardous site as of November 13, 2014. There is therefore no new or
more severe significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the
previous EIR.
e,f) Is tlie site locc�ted witlTin an airport lc�nd use plan of a public ai��port or private airstrip? No
New Impact. The project site is not located near any public airport or private
airstrip (source: Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, August
2012). No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur with
respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed.
g) Inte�ference with an e»iergency resporise or evaci�ation plc�n? No New Impact. The
proposed project would ilulude construction of a residential project on private
land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no public or private
roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe significant impact would
therefore result with respect to this topic than were previously analyzed in the
1996 EIR.
h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or cleath involving wildland
fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project
area is located in a substantially urbanizing area, althoLigh wildlands do exist
north and west of the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 7.3.5 contained in the
1996 EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures
required installation of a irrigated border of fire-resistant vegetation with a
minimum width of 30 feet, provision of disced fire breaks, use of fire resistant
construction materials, provision of adequate emergency access and, as a condition
of tentative subdivision map approval, require a fuel management plan to reduce
the fire fuel load. With adherence to these measures, which will be required as
conditions of the requested land use entitlements, no new or more severe
significant impacts with regard to wildland fire have been identified than were
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Settin�
Locc�l surface water
The Schaefer Ranch area drains into two major regional watersheds: Palomares Creek
and Dublin Creek. These two are divided by Skyline Ridge.
The western portion of Schaefer Ranch, including the project Subareas, are located
within the jurisdictions of Zone 2 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (Zone 2). Zone 2 provides maintenance of regional drainage
facilities within this portion of Alameda County. The eastern portion of Schaefer Ranch
(east of Schaefer Ranch Road) is located within Zone 7.
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Existi�ig dre�in�ge frzcilities
As a condition of project approval from the Dublin Public Works Deparhnent, the
project will be conditioned to meet the requirements of the 2009 Municipal Regional
Permit that requires compliance with C.3 surface water quality standards (pers. comm.,
Jayson Imai, City of Dublin Senior Civil Engineer, 11/20/14). Pursuant to the approved
Master Drainage Plan, a number of drainage facilities have been constructed on
Schaefer Ranch, including but not limited to underground drainage lines, swales and
detention and water quality ponds.
Gfrouridwc�ter recharge
The project Subareas are not located near any major creek and has been filled with
approximately 100 feet of earth material that precludes groundwater recharge. The
Schaefer Ranch property is not designated for groundwater recharge purposes in the
Dublin General Plan.
Floodirig
The inost recent Flood Insurance Rate Map for the western portion of Dublin
Community Panel #060705 0001B) does not include the Schaefer Ranch property.
However, based on discussions with the City of Dublin Public Works Department
(Jayson Imai, City of Dublin, 11/20/14), the topographic elevation of the two subareas
are out of the 100-year flood plain.
Schaefer Ranc11 EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures with
regard to flooding, drainage and water quality.
• Impact 8.1A noted potentially significant impacts with regard to grading and
related impacts on drainage. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1
through 8.1.7, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. This
measure called for preparation of a master drainage plan for the whole of the
Scllaefer Ranch property, provision of flood control improvements on and off the
site, coordination with other applicable agencies and ensuring design is
consistent with applicable drainage design standards.
• Impact 8.2A noted that increased sedimentation would occur with development
of the Schaefer Ranch and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence
to Mitigation Measures 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.4 reduced sediment impacts to a less-
than-significant level. These measures require preparation and submittal of a
water quality report to the City of Dublin, DSRSD, the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and Zone 7 that includes specific construction techniques to
ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result to surface bodies of water.
The mitigation measures also requires the abandonment and sealing of existing
on-site wells and septic tanks and provisions for ensuring water quality for any
open reservoirs located on the Ranch.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the project. The project is also subject to
the requirements under current Clean Water Act and associated implementing
regulations enforced by the City of Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 46
initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Pro�ect Impacts
a) Violate any water quality sta�idards or waste discl2a��ge requirenients? No New Impact.
Approval and construction of the proposed project would add impervious
surfaces to the two subareas that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff
and potentially degrade �vater quality. This impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR
as Impact 8.2A and, �vith adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.2.1, this impact was
reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project applicant will be required to
comply with C.3 surface water quality standards and other water quality
regulations normally and customarily enforced by the City of Dublin and other
jurisdictions (including but not limited to Zone 7). The project applicant will also
be required to continue adherence to this Mitigation Measure for final grading
operations on the project subareas.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to water quality
standards have been identified in this Initial Study than was analyzed in the 1996
EIR.
b) Substafitially deplete grou��idwc�ter recharge a��eas or lowering of water table? No New
Impact. No impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater
resources, since the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface
water supplies from DSRSD and not on local groundwater supplies. No local wells
would be used to supply water to the proposed project. The Schaefer Ranch is not
designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan.
There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this
topic than have been previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
c) Sl.�vstcrnti�lly alter drainc�ge pcttterns, includirig strea�ribed courses sucli t1TC�t sitbstc�ritial
siltc�tion or e��osion would occur? No New Impact. Although new impervious surfaces
would be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, driveways and
similar surfaces, this impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see Impact 8.1A,
Grading and Impacts on Drainage). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1,
which requires preparation of a Master Drainage Plan and Mitigation Measure
8.1.6 that requires installation of erosion improvements for unlined drainage
channels, anzong others, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Much of the project site has been mass graded with approvals of a grading plan
and in conformity with the City approved Master Drainage Plan. It is anticipated
that additional fine grading would be required to create individual building pads
and related improvements. Subsequent grading activities on the site will be
required to conform to the approved Master Drainage Plan, C.3 water quality
standards and all other mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR to ensure
that no new or more severe significant alterations to drainage patterns, stream
courses or that significant amounts of siltation or erosion would occur.
d) Sl.ibstc�ritinlly alter drairiage patterrls or substc��itially incr�ease sua face water rurioff tliat
would ��esielt iri flooding, eitl2er orT or off the project site? No New Impact. Much of the
project site has already been graded based on a mass grading plan and Master
Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other agencies as required by
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Mitigation Measure S.L1. Additional fine grading that would occur will be
required to conform to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1 to ensure that no additional
impacts would occur to drainage patterns or stormwater runoff. The developer is
also required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requiring the project developer
to install flood control facilities and Mitigation Measure 8.1.5, that requires the
developer to undertake additional off-site flooding improvements, as needed.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this
Initial Study regarding drainage patterns and runoff than were analyzed in the
1996 EIR.
e) Create stor�nwate�� rti�noff tliat would exceed the capacity of draiflage syste�lis or c�dd
substantial amounts of polluted runoff'? No New Impact. The issue of exceeding
capacities of drainage systems or increasing the amount of polluted runoff was
addressed in the 1996 EIR by Impact 8.1A. Adherence to Mitigafiion Measure 8.1.2
required the project developer to plan and install necessary flood control and
drainage facilities to minimize downstream flooding, including installation of on-
site detention facilities. Appropriate storm drain and flood control facilities have
been incorporated into the Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin
and other regulatory agencies. The Master Drainage Plan includes local
improvements to the local drainage system to ininimize flooding and substantial
amounts of polluted runoff.
The project is also required by the City of Dublin to incorporate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff of polluted drainage (pers. comm., Jayson
Imai Public Works Department, 11/20/14). The applicant has proposed to use an
existing area-wide water quality pond west of the project site to ensure compliance
with all applicable City and regional water quality standards. Therefore, no new or
inore severe significant impacts with regard to drainage systems or polluted runoff
tllan was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
f) Si.lbstanti�lly deg��ade water quality? No New Impact. This issue and has been
addressed above in item "a."
g) Place housing witl2in c� 100-yec�7�flood ITazard area as rnapped by a Flood Insurance Rate
Mctp? No New Impact. Project Subareas lie outside of the 100-year flood plain and
no impacts would occur with regard to placing additional housing units within a
100-year flood plain (pers. comm., Jayson Imai, 11/20/14).
h, i) Plc�ce within a 100-year flood liazc�rd boundary structures tl�iat impeded or redirect flood
flow, i��cluding dam fizilu��es? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above. No impacts
with regard to hazards from dam failure were identified in the 1996 EIR.
j) Result i�i i�2undation by seiclie, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. Project
Subareas are located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of
water and would not be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to Mitigation
Measures 9.B.1 through 8 contained in the 1996 EIR addressed impacts related to
protection from landslide and mudflows. The ENGEO soils report addressed the
potential for landslide on the Schaefer Ranch and recommended steps to reduce
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. These steps were incorparated
into the mass grading plan for the overall Schaefer Ranch site as required by the
Mitigation Measure. No new or more severe significant impacts than were
analyzed in the previous EIR are anticipated witll regard to landslides and
mudflows.
10. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Settin�
Properties comprising the project site areas currently vacant and contain no structures.
Project Impacts
a) Pl2ysically divide an establisl2ed coni»iunity? No New Impact. The properties
comprising the two Subareas are vacant and are part of the larger Schaefer Ranch
residential planned community. A portion of the Schaefer Ranch master plan has
been constructed. There are no existing dwellings or residents on the two subareas
included in this application. No new or more severe significant impacts would
therefore occur with respect to division of an established community should the
project be approved. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur with
respect to this topic.
b) Coriflict witll c��iy�zpplic�ble Ic��2d use plan, policy or regulatiori adopted for tlie purpose of
avoiding o2� mifigczting c�a�z environ»zental effect? No New Impact. The applicant has
requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate land uses on
Subarea 1 as described in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. A
future General Plan amendment would be required with development
applications for development of Subarea 2.
If this application is approved by the City, the project would be consistent with the
Dublin General Plan, since it would be consistent with the land uses and the
density range specified in the General Plan. No otller land use plan or policy
conflicts would exist and there would be no new or more severe significant
iinpacts to this topic than previously analyzed.
c) Conflict with a l2abitat conservation plc�n or natural commi�nity conservatiorl plan? No
New Impact. The project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area
or natural community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study.
There are no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to conflicts with
a Habitat Conservation Plan or natural community conservation plan for this
project than analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
11. Mineral Resources
Environmental Settin�
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Schaefer Fianch Unit 3 October 2015
The 1996 EIR does not identify the presence of significant mineral deposits in the
Schaefer Ranch area.
Pro�ect Impacts
a, b) Resi�lt in the loss of availability of regionally or locczlly significant mineral resources? No
New Impact. The 1996 EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals
exist in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts would occur
with respect to this topic.
12. Noise
Environmental Settin�
The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating,
objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to
noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although
noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise
levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses.
Regi��lc�toa�y settirzg
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise
in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and
noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway.
The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use
type. These standards were contained in the previous Noise Element of the Dublin
General Plan, which have since been updated (February 2013), but the noise exposure
criteria were in effect at the time this project was submitted and are used for this
analysis.
Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly
Acce table Acce table Unacce table Unacce table
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools, churches, 60-70 70-80 80+ --
nursin homes
Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+
arks
Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ --
Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
The major sources of noise near the Schaefer Rancll site is traffic noise from t11e I-580
free�Nay, iinmediately south of the site. The 1996 EIR esti�nated that the 60 dB Ldn noise
contour extended approximately 1000 feet north of the centerline of the freeway
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The following noise impacts and mitigation measures are contained in the 1996 EIR.
• Impact 11A identified construction noise generated by grading of the
Schaefer Ranch site as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11.A.1
required that existing residents near the Schaefer Ranch be moved off-site
during construction, or that grading activities be phased to limit duration of
grading.
• Impact 11B noted that future residents on a portion of the Schaefer Ranch site
would be impacted by noise from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, by on-site
vehicle noise. To mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level,
Mitigation Measure 11.B.1 required each project developer to prepare and
submit a precise noise control plan identifying how City noise exposure
levels will be met, including but not limited to building treatments,
construction of noise barriers and other techniques. Mitigation Measure
11.B.2 required a redesign of the project where anticipated noise levels would
exceed 70 dB Ldn. This impact does not apply to the current project
submittal.
Tllese mitigation measures continue to apply to the current project.
Project Im�acts
a) Would the p��oject expose pe��so�is or gerzeratio�i of�loise levels i��i excess of standards
established by the General Plari or otlier applicc�ble star2dard? No New Impact. Figure
11-12 contained in the 1996 EIR indicates that all Subareas lie outside of a future
significant noise area, defined as an exterior noise level of 60 decibels or greater
(Ldn). Therefore, approval and construction of the proposed project would not
expose additional residents or visitors to excessive noise levels. No new or more
significant noise impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in the
1996 EIR and no new or additional analysis is required.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groi�ndborrze vibration or grour2dborne noise levels? No
New Impact. The proposed project would include normal construction methods
and techniques typical of single-family dwellings. A majority of site grading has
already occurred as part of the overall Schaefer mass grading operation, so
remaining construction activities would include fine grading and house
construction. Typical construction methods for single-family dwellings do not
involve significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated
with regard to vibration. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts
would result with regard to vibration than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
c) Substc�ntial per�nanent increases in ambient noise levels? No New Impact The 1996 EIR
noted that on-site traffic noise would be a minor component of noise on the site
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
(Impact 11B.). Increases in off-site noise as a result of traffic generated on the
Schaefer Raiuh was identified as a less-than-significant level (see Impact 11E). The
proposed project, if approved, would slightly increase the number of vehicle
trips(see Section 15 of this Initial Study, Transportation). The increase in associated
vehicle noise on the site would not be substantial. Therefore no new or more
severe significant impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
d) Substantial tefriporary or periodic irTCrease in c���ibient �loise levels in tlie project vicinity
nbove levels witliout tlze project? No New Impact. Future grading and construction
activities on the project site are limited to weekdays between 7:30 am and 5 pm by
Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR. No new or more severe
significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than were analyzed in
the 1996 EIR.
e, f) For a ���oject loccrted withiri an airport larid l.ise plan or private airstrip, would the project
expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. As noted in the
Environmental Setting section, the Schaefer Ranch site is not located near any
public or private airports or airstrips and no impact would result with regard to
this topic.
13. Population and Housing
Environmental Settin�
The Subareas included in this project are vacant and contain no dwellings.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified less-than-significant or a beneficial impacts
with regard to population growth (Impact 2A), housing stock(Impact 2B),
affordable housing (Impact 2C), employment (Impact 2D),jobs/housing balance
(Impact 2E), sales tax revenues (Impact 2F), property tax revenues (Impact 2G)
and competitive impacts (Impact 2H). No mitigation measures regarding
population or housing impacts were included in the 1996 EIR.
Project Im�acts
a) I�Tduce substantial population growtli in an area, eitlier direcfly or iridi��ectly? No New
Impact. Approval of the proposed project would increase the permanent
population on this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch project. However, the
total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the project be
approved (420 dwellings) would be fewer than analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474
d�vellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No impact
with regard to substantial population growth is therefore anticipated and no new
or more severe significant impacts regarding population growth have been
identified in this initial study than were identified in the 1996 EIR.
b,c) Would t�ie project displace substantial numbers of existing liousing i�nits or people? No
New Impact. The project site is vacant and no housing units or people would be
displaced should the project be approved.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Schaefer Fianch Unit 3 October 2015
14. Public Services
Environmental Settin�
The following provide essential services to the community:
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station to the project site is Station
No. 16, located at 7494 Donohue Drive in western Dublin. The original
development plan for Schaefer Ranch depicted a site for a future fire station.
Subsequently, the Alameda County Fire Department determined that there
was no need for a station in this location and the City of Dublin allowed the
fire station site to be converted to another land use.
• Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services.
• Librarv Services: Alameda County Library service.
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
is the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified Scllool District,
also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time
building permits are issued and are used to help off-set project impacts to service
providers.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following impacts regarding public services:
• Impact 7.3C identified a significant impact with regard to Fire Department
emergency response times to the Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation
Measures 7.3.1 through 6 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require reservation of a fire station site and staffing of a new fire
station in western Dublin, imposition of fire protection measures on future
subdivision maps in the Schaefer Ranch and planting of fire resistant vegetation
surrounding dwellings on the Schaefer Ranch.
• Impact 7.3D identified a significant impact related to meeting response times to
the Schaefer Ranch site by emergency vehicles. Individual developments in the
Schaefer Ranch will be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1
required dedication of a fire station in West Dublin that would contain
emergency medical response equipment. Mitigation Measure 7.3.8 requires an
educational program to residents focusing on emergency medical response
times.
• Impact 7.3E notes a significant impact with regard to wildland-structural fires,
that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation
Measure 7.3.2— 7.3.5. This measure requires planting of fire-resistant vegetation
between buildings and wildland areas, provide for emergency vehicle access and
discing of fire breaks.
• Impact 7.3F identified a significant impact with regard to lack of fire hydrants in
the Schaefer Ranch area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.3, that requires
installation of DSRSD-approved fire hydrants within the Schaefer Ranch
development.
• Impact 7.3G noted an impact with regard to an increase of combustible materials
on the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.4 require measures such as the use
of appropriate materials as part of future construction, including Class A roof
material and non-combustible walls, such as stucco, installation of interior fire
sprinlclers and similar techniques, to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
• Impact 7.3H noted fire impacts with regard to burning of vegetation on the
Schaefer Ranch that would be significant. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.5
requires that landscape plans for the project exclude high combustion plant
species in favor of fire retardant plants. The measure also requires approval of a
fuel modification plan to reduce fuel load adjacent to future houses and that
perimeter landscaping be irrigated. With adherence to this measure, Impact 7.3H
is less-than-significant.
• Impact 7.3I identified an impact with regard to street and road access into the
Schaefer Ranch site for emergency vehicles and to maneuver on the Ranch.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.6 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring roads within the Schaefer Ranch meet fire
department design standards, including appropriate road surfaces, maximum
gradients, length of cul-de-sac roads and similar items.
• Impact 7.3J noted potential impacts with regard to life safety impacts with
approval of the Schaefer Ranch project, including allowing sufficient time for
occupants to escape buildings in the event of an emergency. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 7.3.1, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 reduces this impact to a less-than-
significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 is described above. Mitigation
Measures 7.3.7 and .8 require implementation of an education and self-inspection
program for future residents to allow sprinklers to remain in place and
implementation of a Community Education Program focusing on medical
emergencies.
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
• Impact 7.4A identifies a significant impact with regard to an increase in the
number of calls for service based on development of the Schaefer P.anch and the
need for additional police staffing and equipment. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require the Schaefer Ranch developer to prepare a budget
strategy to increase police staffing and equipment to serve the project and that
adequate security services can be provided to regional trails in the area by East
Bay Regional Park District.
• Impact 7.4B notes a significant impact with regard to site security in terms of
visibility of dwellings and police response times. Adherence to Mitigation
Measure 7.4.3 requires police department review of individual development
projects to ensure that safety and security components are included in project
designs, including proper visibility, access and similar components and reduced
this impact to a less-than-significant level.
• Impact 7.8A identified a significant impact with regard to other municipal
services, such as building and safety, engineering, planning, and general
governmental services provided by the City of Dublin. Ot11er governmental
services are provided by Alameda County, including libraries, welfare and
similar functions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 will reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires that the City of Dublin
analyze other municipal service costs to ensure that satisfactory services can be
provided as part of a Development Agreement.
• Impact 7.9A notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the amount of
solid waste generated by new land uses on the Schaefer Ranch site. The Schaefer
Ranch EIR includes Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 to reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level. These measures requires the applicant to furnish the
City a "will serve" letter from the solid waste collector confirming that solid
waste collection and disposal services are available to serve the project and that
commercial portions of the Schaefer Ranch area provide on-site areas for
recycling.
• Impact 7.10A identified an impact with regard to school district boundaries and
school facilities. When the 1996 EIR was prepared, neither the Castro Valley
Unified School District or the Dublin Unified School District had the capacity to
accommodate additional students generated by the Schaefer Ranch development.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.10.1 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level. It requires that, prior to residential occupancy, the City verify
that attendance boundaries between the two school disfiricts have been resolved,
that the Development Agreement for the project provide for payment of school
fees by project developers and that the applicable school district has been
consulted with regard to siting of any new schools required to serve the Schaefer
Ranch project. This action has been completed.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the currently proposed project.
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
15. Recreation
Environmental Settin�
Project Subareas currently vacant and contains no City or regional parks.
The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that local parks are
planned to be constructed north of Subarea 1 and a regional trail is planned to extend
through the approximate center of the Schaefer Ranch project. The regional trail has
been completed and accepted by the East Bay Regional Park District. A staging area for
the regional trail has been constructed in the eastern portion of Schaefer Ranch and is
currently operational.
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 EIR contains the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to
parks and recreation facilities.
• Impact 7.6A identified an impact to open space management issues within the
Schaefer Ranch, including balancing public use of open space areas and overuse
of environmentally fragile areas. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6-1
requires preparation of an Open Space Management Plan that would identify
open space areas, specific issues and funding sources for open space areas.
• Impact 7.6B notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the need for
additional parks within the Schaefer Ranch project to serve the anticipated
increase of on-site residents. Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 requires the
provision of local parks, a regional trail and payment of in-lieu park fees to the
City of Dublin for neighborhood and community parks. Park sites offered to the
City shall be reviewed for developability as a park in terms of geotechnical
considerations, availability of services and other conditions. With adherence to
these measures, Impact 7.6B will be less-than-significant. These facilities have
been provided.
• Impact 7.6C notes a potentially significant impact with regard to internal open
space, including on-going maintenance, fire suppression, weed abatement,
erosion control and slope stability. Mitigation Measure 7.6.5 requires the City of
Dublin to impose conditions of approval on specific developinent projects within
the Schaefer Ranch, including ownership of graded slopes with heights of 15 feet
or greater, maintenance of access points to open space areas, provision of a
permanent management entity for internal and perimeter open space areas.
• Impact 7.6E relates to an impact with regard to the proposed regional trail and
other on-site trail facilities being consistent with EBRPD standards. Adherence to
Mitigation Measures 7.6.8 and 7.6.9 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant
level. These measures require the City of Dublin to verify that regional trail
facilities and linkages are consistent with EBRPD standards.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project.
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Project Im�acts
a) Would the project i�icrease the use of existing neiglz�orliood or regiorial pnrks? No New
Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would not increase the
use of nearby City and/or regional recreational facilities from that analyzed in the
1996 EIR, since the total number of dwellings within the overall Scllaefer Ranch
should the project be approved (420 dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the
1996 EIR (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466
dwellings). No recreational facilities are proposed as part of the current project.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to use of parks
would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
b) Does the project include recreatiorial facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above.
16. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Settin�
The project site is served by Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial road that has
been extended into Schaefer Ranch. Dublin Boulevard links Schaefer Ranch with central
Dublin as well as providing regional access to the I-580 freeway. North-south access to
and from the project site is provided by Schaefer Ranch Road that intersects with
Dublin Canyon Road south of the I-580 freeway.
Public transit to West Dublill is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit
Authority that operates WHEELS, a fixed and demand based bus service in Dublin,
Pleasanton and Liverinore. The closest bus line to Schaefer Ranch is Route 3 that
extends as far west as the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive. Route
3 provides fixed weekday and Saturday service to Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda Business
Park, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other points within Dublin.
As noted in the Recreation section above, a regional multi-use trail has been constructed
within the Schaefer Ranch site and dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. A
trailhead has also been built.
Dublin Boulevard has been designed to accommodate bicyclists (2008 Addendum).
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following traffic and circulation significant
impacts and mitigation measures.
• Impact 4A identifies a significant impact with regard to additional traffic at the
Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection causing this intersection to
operate at an unsatisfactory level of service. Adherence to Mitigation Measure
4.A1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and requires
developments within the Schaefer Ranch to contribute a fair share contribution to
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
a traffic signal at this intersection and associated widening of this intersection.
This measure has been completed.
• Impact 4B noted a significant impact with regard to future traffic at the San
Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of traffic from Schaefer
Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.B.1 requires the Schaefer Ranch developer to
contribute a fair share contribution to widening and improving this intersection
to accommodate future project traffic. With such a payment, this impact will be
less-than-significant. This mitigation measure has been completed.
• Impact 4F identified an impact with regard to significant impacts at the Hansen
Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of Schaefer Ranch traffic.
Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.F.1 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the Schaefer Ranch project developer to contribute
a fair share portion of the cost of installing a traffic signal at this intersection. This
measure has been completed.
• Impact 4G identified a significant impact at the Schaefer Ranch/Dublin Canyon
Road intersection due to future traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to
Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level and
requires the developer to contribute a fair share amount of the cost to signalizing
this intersection and to making related improvements to Dublin Canyon Road.
• Iinpact 4H notes a significant impact with regard to future traffic at Schaefer
Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.H.1
reduces this impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring the Schaefer
Ranch developer install a traffic signal at this intersection. This measure has been
completed.
� Impact 4L identified a significant cumulative impact with regard to future traffic
conditions at Eden Canyon Road/Palomares Canyon Road and a I-580
interchange due to future traffic plus the Schaefer Ranch's contribution to future
traffic conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring the project applicants to contribute a fair-share
portion of future signal costs at the intersection of Eden Canyon Road/I-580 EB
ramps and the intersection of Palo Verde Road/I-580 EB ramps. The fair-share
contribution shall be determined by a future fee study based on trips using these
intersections.
• Impact 40 identified a potentially significant impact with regard to transit access
to the Schaefer Ranch site, specifically that no pubic transit stops exist near the
Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 requires the City of Dublin to consult with
public transit districts to make necessary transit arrangements for future transit
provisions. The City shall require a park-and-ride lot, if appropriate, as well as a
transit stop, bus turning radii and other facilities to support transit.
• Impact 4R identified a significant impact with the provision of pedestrian and
bicycle access within the Schaefer Ranch development and with providing
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
regional linkages to existing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Mitigation Measure
4.R.1 throug114.R.3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by
requiring Dublin Boulevard to accommodate bicycles, extending the
pedestrian/equestrian trial under I-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road and
providing proper signs and markings for tt-ail crossings.
These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project.
Pro�ct Im�acts
a) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the cTrculation system,
including aU modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other
components? No New Impact. The proposed project would slightly reduce peak
hour vehicle trips to local and regional roads than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
This would be 18 fewer AM peak hour trips and 18 fewer PM peak 11our trips. This
is shown on Table 2, below.
Table 2. Residential Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Dwelling Units A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Trips Trips
Induded in 1996 EIR
Single Family- 400 296 401
detached
Single Family- 74 33 41
Attached
Totnl Tri s -- 329 442
Pro osed Develo me�it
Single Family- 420 311 424
detached
Total Pro osed Tri s -- 344 424
Net Change -18 -18
Note: Trip rates based on Table 4-5 contained in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR, updated by City of
Dublin staff (2015). Trip rates as documented in 1996 EIR.
There would be fewer peak trips than analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in less of an impact to roadways
than the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
As required by various mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR, the project
developer has installed a traffic signal system at the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer
Ranch Road intersection as well as paid fair share contributions to improvements
at the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the San Ramon
Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard
intersection, the Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon Road intersection, the
Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection and the Eden Canyon Road-
Palomares Road/I-580 interchange.
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Based on discussions with the Dublin Public Works Department, the above
iinprovements 11ave constructed, have been bonded for, or fees have been paid to
the City as required by the various 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures.
Thus, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the
1996 would result.
b) Conflict witli an applicable conges�ion management program, including level of service
standc�rds, frc�vel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact.
Although the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Dublin General Plan,
the project would not generate a minimum of 100 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips,
which is the threshold of significance for the local congestion management plan.
No new or more severe signiricant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR
would result.
c) CliarTge iri �zir trczffic�atterrTS? No New Impact. Since the proposed project includes
residential uses, it would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more
severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously
analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New
Impact. Future residential development that would be allowed by the project
approvals would be served by existing roadways and access easements that have
been designed to City engineering standards and criteria.
As identified in the Project Description, the applicant has requested a modification
of 1996 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.G.1. Among other requirements, this measure
required the project applicant to contribute a fair share portion of financing a
traffic signal at the Schaefer Road/ Dublin Canyon Road intersection. Alameda
County Public Works Departrnent have submitted documentation that signal
warrants in this location have not been met. The project applicant has requested
that Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 be modified, but that the project applicant be
responsible for improvements at this intersection, including a contribution for a
future signal when and if warrants are met.
Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the
1996 EIR would result with respect to design hazards.
e) Result in inadeqti�c�te emerger2cy access? No New Impact. Dwellings included in the proposed
project within Subareas 1 and 2 would be served by existing roads that would provide
adequate emergency access. No new or more severe significant impacts with regard to
emergency access would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
f) Cofiflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transyortation pla�ls or
result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No New Impact. The overall
Schaefer Ranch project includes features that promotes pedestrian and bicycle use
as required by Mitigation Measures 4.R.1 —4.R.3, including allowing bicycle traffic
along Dublin Boulevard and including sidewalks along major sidewalks No new
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
or more severe significant impacts regarding alternative transportation modes
would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Settin�
The project site is currently served by the following service providers:
• Potable water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
• Sewage collection and treatment: DSRSD
� Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries.
• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
• Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell).
Schaefer Ranch EIR
The 1996 EIR contains the following significant impacts and mitigation measures with
regard to utilities and service systems.
• Impacts 7.1A and 7.1B identified significant impacts with regard to lack of a
water system on the project site and constraints on water supply. These impacts
were reduced to less-than-significant levels by adherence to Mitigation Measures
7.1.1 through 7.1.8. These measures require incorporation of water conservation
features into the project, designing and constructing water systems to meet
DSRSD engineering standards, construction of a new water reservoir on the site,
issuance of a will-serve water service letter from DSRSD, appropriate phasing of
the water system and similar elements.
• Impact 7.2A was identified as a significant impact related to the adequacy of
wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures
7.2.1 through 7.2.12 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require issuance of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD indicating
that adequate wastewater disposal capacity is available, requiring the applicant
to update the local wastewater collection system master plan, requires the
project developer to obtain wastewater connections from DSRSD, requires use of
recycled water for open space areas, requires annexation of the Ranch to DSRSD,
requires that all wastewater facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering
standards, requires that treated effluent from the project meet Regional Water
Quality Control Board standards and other related items.
• Impact 7.2C noted a significant impact with regard to disposal of treated
wastewater that will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to
Mitigation Measure 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4.
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
• Impact 7.2D identified a significant impact with regard to �n�astewater
improvements. Mitigation Measure 7.2.6 reduced this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
• Impact 7.9A noted a significant impact with regard to solid waste capacity.
Mitigation Measure 7.9.1
The above mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project.
Pro�ect Im�acts
a) Exceed wastewater treatme�it requiremerits of tlle RWQCB? No New Impact. Mitigation
Measure 7.2.8 contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR requires the project to meet
treated effluent stalzdards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Based on the will-serve letter issued by DSRSD for the overall Schaefer Ranch
project, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exists to serve
development planned in the Schaefer Ranch development so that no new or more
severe significant impacts would result. The currently proposed project would
generate less wastewater than the total number of dwellings and the commercial
development originally planned and approved for this portion of the overall
Schaefer Ranch development. The local service provider recently documented that
adequate wastewater treahnent capacity exists to serve the proposed project and
would not exceed regional water quality bard discharge standards (source: Stan
Kolodzie, DSRSD engineer, 12/17/14). Therefore, no new or more severe
significant impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic than were analyzed in
the previous EIR prepared for the Schaefer Ranch project.
b) Require �iew water o��wastewater trectt��rTent fitcilities or expansio�i of existing facilities?
No New Impact. Water and wastewater extensions from existing utility facilities
would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed for
the two subareas. According to a representative of DSRSD, the need for increased
water, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the
construction of the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe
significant impact than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR document and as contained
in current General Plan land use build-out assumptions (source: Stan Kolozdie,
DSRSD, 12/17/14).
The issue of wastewater treatment facilities is addressed in subsection "a," above.
Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to
water and wastewater provision than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR.
c) Reqifire new storrn drairiage facilities? No New Impact. Impacts related to drainage
impacts and mitigation measures from the 1996 EIR are contained in Section 8 of
this Initial Study. Based on the analysis contained in that section, no new or more
severe significant impacts related to storm drainage facilities beyond those set
forth in the 1996 EIR have been identified.
d) Are si�fficie�lt water supplies availc�ble? No I�Tew Impact. See item "b," above.
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
e) Adequate wastewater ca�acity to serve tlie pro�osed project? No New Impact. See
response to "a," above.
f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1
contained in the 1996 EIR reduced the impact to solid waste facilities as a result of
the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires the
solid waste provider to issue a will-serve letter prior to issuance of a tentative
subdivision map. Based on information provided by Amador Valley Industries,
the franchised solid waste and recycle hauler for the City of Dublin, adequate
capacity exists in the Altamont Landfill to accommodate the quantity of solid
waste generated by this project (per. comm., Karen Brighi, Amador Valley
Industries, 7/21/08). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1, no new or more
severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 19y6 EIR with regard to
solid waste would occur.
g) Corriply witlz federal, stc�te arid loer�l statutes and regitlations relczted to solid waste? No
New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state
and local solid waste regulations should the proposed development applications
be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard.
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does tl2e project]iave the potential to degrade tlze quality of the erivironme�it, substaritic�lly ��edT.�ce
tlie lzabitat of a fisli or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
si�stctiriirTg levels, tlireaten to elirninate a plant or animal community, reduce the numbe�-of or
restrict tlie r�znge of a rr�re or endc�ngered plant or anilrial or elirrzinate ir�iportar2t exatnples of tlie
major�eriods of California lzistory or prel�istory? No. Potential impacts related to substailtial
reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species, reduce the range or
number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of
California history or prehistory on the Schaefer Ranch site area have been analyzed and
mitigated in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR The proposed project would cause no new or
substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond
those identified in the previous EIR.
b) Does tl�e project have irnpacts tlic�t are individually ltmited, but curnitic�tively co2�tsiderable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. Significant and
unavoidable impacts have been identified with regard to secondary impacts on native
plants, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and cumulative loss of
vegetation and wildlife. The proposed project would not result in additional or more
severe significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City in
the 1996 EIR.
c) Does tlie project have environmenfczl effects, wj�ich will cause substantial adverse effects on )iul�i�rn
beit7gs, eithe�� directly or iyidirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course
of preparing this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager
Jane Maxwell, report graphics
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The follo�ving agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director (former)
Jeff Baker, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Project Manager
Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
Captain Tom McCarthy, Police Services Department
Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department
Dublin San Ra�non Services District
Rhodora Biagton, senior engineer
California DepartliierTt of Toxic Si�bstances Cont�rol (DTSC)
Website
Applicc�nt Re�resentatives
Doug Chen, Discovery Builders
References
Say Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, 2012
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, November 2014
CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Im�act Re�ort,
2008.
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 2/18/14
Final Environmental Im�act Re�ort for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan
Amendment, WPM Planning Team, 1996
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin.
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015