The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 6.1 Sorrento East PD Rezone Attch 8~;~5, ~- RESOLUTION NO. XX - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000 DUBLIN RANCH AREA F MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT PA 08-002 WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to develop a 581 unit residential project on an approximately 68 acre site. The project consists of 513 detached units and 68 attached units, a private recreational facility, a 5.6 acre Neighborhood Park site and other related improvements. The related applications include amendments to previous PD-Planned Development Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and Development Agreement approvals. The proposed project reduces the previously approved development from 694 units to 581 units and changes the mix of units from primarily attached to primarily detached. The above activities and applications are further described in applications on file with the City and are collectively referred to as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located between Gleason Drive and Central Parkway and between Grafton Street and Lockhart Street; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("2000 MND") for approximately 147 acres known as Dublin Ranch Area F in Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area F on March 7, 2000 (Resolution No. 35-00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD-Planned Development zoning and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6-00, incorporated herein by reference). The approvals anticipated low and medium density residential development in Area F with related parks and schools; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 47-04, a General/Specific Plan amendment to reallocate land uses in portions of Dublin Ranch Areas F, B and E. The Medium Density Residential land use designation for most of the Project site remained unchanged; approximately 4 acres of public/semi-public land on the Project site was redesignated to Medium Density Residential. The Council also approved Ordinance 12-04 adopting a revised PD-Stage 1 Development Plan for an approximately 285.4 acre planning area and a Stage 2 Development Plan for 88.5 acres north of the current Project site. The Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 8 Council determined that any potentially significant impacts from the reallocation of uses was adequately addressed in the prior EDEIR and 2000 MND and that no further environmental review was required. The Council adopted a CEQA Addendum documenting this determination (Resolution 43-04, March 16, 2004). The above referenced resolutions and ordinance are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance 24-05 for the 124.8 acre Sorrento East and West portion of Area F for a 1,112 unit residential development on either side of Grafton Street. The ordinance revised the previously approved PD-Stage 1 Development Plan by increasing the maximum number of potential residences in Area F from 1,290 to 1,351 and approved a PD-Stage 2 Development Plan for the Sorrento East and West development; companion Site Development Review as well as a Master Vesting Tentative Map and Vesting Tentative Maps for individual neighborhoods were also approved. The east and west portions of the residential development would be linked by a pedestrian and open space corridor and a pedestrian bridge across Grafton Street. The westerly portion of the development is nearing completion; the easterly portion of the approved development is the current Project site. The City Council approved a Development Agreement for the Sorrento East portion of the development on October 2, 2007; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project modifications and development was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated March 9, 2010 describing the modifications and development and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. The Addendum and related Initial Study are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, a City Council staff report dated April 20, 2010 and incorporated herein by reference analyzed the Project and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the applications; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project on April 20, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the Project applications. The City Council further considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking any action; and WHEREAS, all of the above resolutions and ordinances incorporated by reference are available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 2 of 4 35~~ ~ f BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the Addendum and related Initial Study, the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND, the City Council Staff Report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the Addendum and related Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previously approved Eastern Dublin and Area F projects that will require major revisions to the EIR or MND due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Eastern Dublin and Area F projects which were previously addressed in the EIR and MND. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior EIR and MND. All previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Regent/Sorrento East Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts any further required CEQA findings. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 2010 by the following vote: 3 of 4 ~~,~~451 ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ity Manager Mayor of 4 3~~~~~ i CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT PA 08-002 March 9, 2010 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR. A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 99112040) was prepared fora 147-acre portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area, known as Dublin Ranch Area F. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on February 15, 2000 by City Council Resolution No. 34- 00. In February, 2004 the City of Dublin adopted an Addendum to the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND that included Area F. This document analyzed the impacts of re-designating General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection from "Public-Semi-Public" to "Medium Density Residential" designations. A majority of the land use designation, "Medium Density Residential," remained unchanged This current Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project site, as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals In 1998, an application was filed with the City to approve an amendment to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for Planning Area F of Dublin Ranch within Eastern Dublin. The application, approved in 2000, shifted higher density residential and commercial land uses between Area F and adjacent Area G to create a town center in Area G and shifted more medium density residential uses to Area F. Approved Area F land uses also included middle and elementary school sites, similar to those adopted in the 1993 General Plan and EDSP. Additionally, a 14.2-acre Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designation was relocated from Area F to Area G. The GPA and SPA was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 35-00, on March 7, 2000; the Planned Development zoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan was approved through Ordinance 6-00 on March 21, 2000. EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 8 In 2004, the City of Dublin approved amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan affecting Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, E and F within the Eastern Dublin'area, as well as other related planned development rezonings. In regard to the current Project site, this action re-designated lands at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection from "Public-Semi- Public" to "Medium Density Residential" land use. A majority of the land use designation, "Medium Density Residential," remained unchanged. The GPA and SPA was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 43-04, on March 16, 2004; the Planned Development zoning with a revised Stage 1 Development Plan was approved through Ordinance 12-04. In 2005, the City approved a further revised Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2 Development Plan for the Project site and neighboring site (Ordinance 24-OS), and approved Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps. In 2007, the City approved a related Development Agreement. The current application includes a request to the City of Dublin for the following amended entitlements: Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, one or more Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps and Development Agreement. The proposed Project would allow construction of up to 581 dwellings, which would represent a decrease of 113 dwellings from the currently approved Development Plans. If approved, the new mix of residential dwellings would include detached green courts, single-family dwellings and tuck-under townhomes. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for athen-largely undeveloped area east of the then- existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated herein by reference. 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 1998, the property owner requested modifications to the~Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In response to the application and consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the requests would require additional environmental review beyond that set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts of the general and specific plan amendments were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was predictable given the comprehensive planning for the development area; the Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin Specific Plan land use designations and policies; the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin General Plan, East Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses. Although the Initial Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential Page 2 ~,~;',tj~~--'' environmental impacts of the proposed general and specific plan amendments, it also identified the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the City. The City adopted the 2000 MND and a related Mitigation Monitoring Program through Resolution No. 34-00. The 2000 MND is hereby incorporated herein by reference. 2004 Addendum. In 2004, an Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND was approved for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments affecting Dublin Ranch Areas B, E and F (see City Council Resolution No. 47-04 adopted March 16, 2004). Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Eastern Dublin EIR, the previous MND and previous Addendum to determine if any further environmental review was required for the actions proposed for this Project site. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated February 22, 2010, 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: a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND or the 2004 Addendum. The Project proposes the same type and general density of dwelling units but with 113 fewer dwellings than currently approved. No changes or modifications have been requested or are required to the Dublin General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate proposed uses and activities. bj -Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND or the 2004 Addendum. This is documented in the Initial Study prepared for this Project dated February 22, 2010. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous Page 3 3~~~,~~ ~ EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? ?There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. Tne applicant's plans for Sorrento East project are'consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR ands 2000 MND mitigation measures. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous MND and the previous Addendum. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on an Initial Study dated February 22, 2010. The Addendum and Initial Study reviews the proposed development activities discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed Project does not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous mitigated negative declaration and Addendum, and this Addendum/Initial Study adequately address 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 environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The above referenced resolutions, ordinances, Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND and 2004 Addendum are all available for public review in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours and are all incorporated herein by reference. Page 4 m. 3~3~. Initial Study Project: Sorrento East File # PA 08-002 Lead Agency: City of Dublin February 2010 ~tl ~~~~~~~~~. „_r. 3~~ ~ `~~ l Table of Contents .. ..... ................. 2 ..................................... Introduction ................................................. 2 Prior Approvals and Environmental Review Documents ................. .................. .............6 Applicant/Contact Person ..................................................................... . ..... ..................6 ........................ Project Description ........................................................ ............ . Project Characteristics .......................................................... ... . 19 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................ ................ ... ... ................19 Determination ................................................................. .................. ... 21 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................. .............. ............. 22 Environmental Impacts ......................................................................... .... 31 Earlier Analysis /Incorporation by Reference ..................................... ................. ... Discussion of Checklist ...................................................................... ................. 32 ............... 32 ..................... 1. Aesthetics ............................................................... .. ........... 35 2. Agricultural Resources .............................................................. ...... .............36 3. Air uali ................................. Q ty ................................................ ..... .......... 4. Biological Resources ................................................................. ........ 4 ............. 5. Cultural Resources .................................................................... ..... .......49 6. Geology and Soils ..................................................................... ........... 52 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................... 7 .................. . 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................. ..................54 Land Use and Planning ........................................................... 9 ...................58 . ..............59 10. Mineral Resources .................................................................. . ..... ...................59 11. Noise ...................................................................................... .....62 12. Population and Housing ....................................................... .............. 13. Public Services ........................................................................ ...................62 ................64 14. Recreation ............................................................................... ... .66 • ....................... 15. Transportation/Traffic .................................. ................... ......................... 16. Utilities and Service Systems ...................... .................... 69 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................... ....................76 ...............78 Initial Study Preparers ....................................................................... ..... 78 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ........................................... .................... .. ....................78 References ......................................................................................... 79 Attachment 1 (Biological Resource Letter) ....................................... .................... ~c~s ~ ~~~ INITIAL STUDY Sorrento East Project City of Dublin Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in ub°ResnCode ~ 21000 t seq.) and the CEQA a Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA , P Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, ~~ 15000-15387). for the Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch, Area F East ("Project site. ) This Initial Study assesses development-level activities relate 2 Planned Deve opment amendments to the following approvals: Stage 1 & the Stag Zoning, Site Development Review (SDR), vesting tentative subdivision map and development agreement, all of whicho Dublin entitlements areereferredlto hereinoas the The amendments to the existing City "Project." Prior Approvals anal Environmental Review Documents _ ~ ~-___~c:., nt~r ~„~ Prnoram EIR. A 1993 Eastern Uubtin llenerai rlai~ ~~~.~=.u~=,..-•~ ~ ---- - considerable amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in Eastern Dublin that includes the Projecl 93 bAthe Ci a o Dublin ne1993 fopthe Eastern was certified through Resolution No. 5 y ~' Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmblin EIRport' EDEIR.SThat EIR evaluated the 91103064); referred to as the Eastern D following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution No. 53-93, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone . service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, _ earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. The underlying project includes the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGPA) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The approved project was a modified Page 2 City of Dublin February 2010 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 3r~~~~}5i version of the original EDGPA for the 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning area. The original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on County property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture /open space designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time, a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres wathia ledeland u e d e gnati D s, policies programs supplements the EDGPA with more and regulations. The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area with amixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres designated for Rural Residential use with a 100-acre minimum parcel size. Approximately 10.6 million square fa d 12 new ~ hoolscwere al o pla ned. Buildout .es, 571 acres of designated open space, was expected to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction. The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning area. Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact villages with residential and neighb ded alon rarte als with tra site cce snerating commercial uses are generally pro $ The Eastern Dublin EIR was based on the origina16,920-acre planning area and land use designations, and 3,328-acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. As required by CEQA, the EIR also identified project alternatives, including a Reduced Planning Area (RPA) alternative, which the City Council adop°ted in a modified form in 1993. The adopted modified RPA alternative red ildout of the EDGPA area onlyswthin the for buildout of the Specific Plan area and bu Dublin Sphere of Influence. Annexation and Prezonin~. The Project site and surrounding properties in Dublin Ranch were annexed to the City of Dublin on September 28, 1995.111eof which wasnd reorganization encompassed 1,538 acres of land, approximately 1, located in Dublin Ranch. The anneuses based on the general plan and specific plan land Development zoning district with use designations. "~ 2000 Area F Approval. In 2000, an Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND")was approved by the D lane Am1endment1Ealstern Dubl n Spec fic Pla d February 15, 2000) for a General Amendment and a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F. The Initial Study analyzed all of the environmental topics recommended in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Based on additional site-specific analysis of biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation supplemental mitigation measures were adopted by the City. Page 3 City of Dublin February 2010 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 3c~~ ~ psi For this Initial Study, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration is referred to as the "2000 MND." 2004 Approvals. In 2004, the City of Dublin approved amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan affectirnigned dev loAmentBezonings. Intregard toathe n Dublin area, as well as other related pla P current Project site, this action re-designated lands at the Central Parkway/ Grafton Street intersection from "Public-Semi-Public~~Medium Density Residenhalnrema n d use. A ma)ority of the land use designation, unchanged. An Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was approved in 2004 for these actions (see City Council Resolution No. 47-04 adodocument and~is00ferred to asdthe ""2004 hereby incorporated by reference into thi Addendum." The following two tables depict exiting approved land uses for Planning Area F (Table 1) and for the Sorrento East site (Table 2). Table 1. Existing Planning Area F/Sorrento at Dublin Ranch Approved Land Uses Source: Project Applicant, 2008 * Acreage included under medium density residential, acreage shown accounts only for recreational area. ** Acreage included under medium density residential. Acreage does not include private recreational facilities in Neighborhoods 9 and 11. Table 2, below, summaoT entoistio'e tpcons sting of 67 9 gross acres of land. portion of the overall S p ) Page 4 City of Dublin February 2010 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 Table 2. Existing Sorrento East Approved Land Uses Source: Project Applicant, 2009 2005 Approvals. In 2005, the City approved amendments to the Stage I Planned Development for the Sorrento Project (Area F West and East) to revise the maximum number of units in Dublin Ranch Area F (PA 01-037 and Ordinance No. 24-05) and approving a Stage 2 Development Plan for Sorrento at Dublin Ranch (PA 04-042 and Ordinance 24-05). Also in 2005, the City approved Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps for the Sorrento Project (Area F West and East) (PA 04-042 and Resolution 05-52). On October 2, 2007, the City approved a Development Agreement for Sorrento East. Current Proposal. This Initial Study has been prepared to address requested zoning and land use changes for the Sorrento East Project as described more fully below. Current ry approvals that are proposed to be amended for the Project includes the 2004 General Plan and Specific Plan Amendmte Develo Oment Reviewl(SDDR) a d Vesting Te n htvge 2 Development Plan, the 2005 Si p Subdivision Map and the 2007 Development Agreement. Page 5 City of Dublin February 2010 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 `Acreage included under meaium uc~~~~~y ~~~~~~~~•~~~~ --~---~- recreational area. "School Site has been transferred and is not part of the Project. This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances and prior CEQA documents referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all available for review by the public during normal business hours at the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568. Applicant/Contact Person SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC Attn: Pat Costanzo 11990 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200 Los Angeles CA 90049 Phone: (310) 806-9871 Project Description Project location and context. The Project includes proposed land use entitlements for an approximately 68-acre (gross) site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows the regional location of Dublin in relation to the Bay area. Exhibit 2 shows the Project site location in relation to the City of Dublin. The site is bounded on the north by Gleason Drive, on the west by Grafton Street, on the east by a Lockhart Street, and on the south by Central Parkway. Access to the site is provided by both Central Parkway and Gleason Drive, which intersect with Tassajara Road to the west. In turn, Tassajara Road is linked to Interstate 580 via an existing interchange thus providing regional connections. Exhibit 3 shows the site in context with other surrounding streets and properties. The Project site contains no buildings and is characterized by annual grasslands. No trees grow on the site, and the site has been mass graded pursuant to the existing entitlements. The topography consists of mass graded terraces, generally trending northeast to southwest. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential uses to the north (Verona), medium density multi-family residential uses to the west (Sorrento West), high-density multi-family residential uses to the south (The Courtyards and The Groves) and vacant land to the east. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential uses to the north (the Verona project), medium-density multi-family residential uses to the west (Sorrento West), medium and medium=high density multi-family residential uses to the south (the Courtyards) and vacant land to the east, which is being developed as the City of Dublin Sports Park. The first phase of this park is nearing completion. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 ~,« PA 08-002 3~0,~~-~ Project Characteristics Overview. The application includes a request to the City of Dublin for the following amended entitlements: Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Design Review permit(s), one or more Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps and Development Agreement to allow the development on the site described below. No changes have been requested in existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. The proposed Project would allow construction of up to 581 dwellings, which would represent a decrease of 113 dwellings from the currently approved Stage 1 & Stage 2 PD Development Plans. The Project would also modify the mix of dwelling units by increasing the proportion of detached dwelling units and increase the number of attached dwellings. If approved, the new mix of residential dwellings would include detached green courts, single-family dwellings and tuck-under townhomes. In addition, the following items detail the differences between the approved Project and the proposed Project. The proposed Project will consist of the following elements, all designed to respond to recent changes in the residential market: • The Sorrento East community site plan is proposed to be reorganized to centralize a park within the residential neighborhoods by creating a park parcel that is more usable in terms of configuration, visual and physical access, and grading. • The redesign of the Project would create a predominantly detached neighborhood community, with the overall unit count decreased by 113 dwellings. • The central open space element and pedestrian walk in Neighborhood 8 would be enlarged to facilitate the pedestrian bridge overcrossing and trail connection from Sorrento West and terminates at the Sorrento East neighborhood park. This would enable an improved pedestrian connection between Sorrento West and East, and would provide a more substantial green belt and amenity within the community. • Neighborhood Park gross acreage is proposed to be increased by 0.1 acre, but decreased on a net acreage basis by 0.1 acres. • A private recreation facility is proposed to be centrally located within the Project site to ensure usability of this amenity. The recreation facility would include a swimming pool, spa, children's wading pool, outdoor deck and bar-b-que area. Recreational building would include dining areas, a lounge, a great room, an aerobics facility /fitness center and restrooms. • The majority of the interior residential streets are proposed to be realigned, as well as incorporating separated sidewalks with parkways. This would enhance the livability and character of the neighborhoods. • Backbone streets Capoterra and Lee Thompson are proposed to be realigned to improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation within and through the project. City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 3~~~~~ The grading concept is proposed to be modified to reflect the proposed changes in the site plan. In many cases retaining walls are proposed to be replaced with slope banks to improve the appearance of streetscapes. Infrastructure layouts are proposed to be reconfigured to accommodate the new street and neighborhood designs. Table 3 shows the proposed land use mix for the Project and Table 4 summarizes proposed land uses for each neighborhood (see Exhibit 5 for the location of each neighborhood). Table 3.2009 Proposed Sorrento East Planning Area Land Uses Land Use Category Gross Net DUs Gross Net Acres Acres Density Densi Medium Density Residential / 62.3 54.8 581 9.3 10.6 O en S ace du. / ac. du / ac. Nei hborhood Park 5.6 5.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. Total 67.9 59.9 581 9.3 9.3 du/ac du/ac Source: Project Applicant, 2009 Table 4. Proposed Sorrento East Neighborhood Summary Proposed Land Use/ Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Type Gross Net Units Gross Net Acres Acres Densi Densi Neighborhood 6 / 9.2 8.5 102 9.4 du / ac 11.1 Detached Green Court du/ac Neighborhood 7/ 8.5 10.0 95 9.5 du/ac 11.2 Detached Green Court du/ ac Neighborhood 8/ 11.3 12.0 138 11.5 12.2 Detached Green Court du/ ac du/ ac Neighborhood 9/ 4.9 6.6 68 10.3 13.9 Tuck-Under Townhomes du/ac du/ac Neighborhood 10 / 13.1 14.9 112 13.1 14.9 Sin le Famil Detached du/ ac du/ ac Neighborhood 11 / 7.2 7.4 66 8.9 du/ ac 9.2 du/ ac Sin le Famil Detached Source: MacKay & Somps, 2009 The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 4. The proposed Stage 2 ,~,~. Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 5. Project details. Following is a description of proposed land uses, designs of proposed buildings, building heights, site access and circulation, parking, utility services, water quality protection, grading, inclusionary housing requirements, public art, and phasing. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 3~Z~~}~ i Land Use Types. A range of attached and detached residential product types would be constructed on the Site. The following types are envisioned: • Single Family Dwellings • Detached Green Courts • Tuck-Under Townhouses Specifically, Neighborhoods 6, 7, and 8 would be composed of various sizes of detached dwellings sited in a green court configuration. Green courts are designed to have dwelling unit entries accessed from a common central green space that is separated from vehicular traffic. A private recreation facility would be placed central to these three neighborhoods to provide recreation opportunities for the residents of neighborhoods 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Components of the private recreation facility was described above. Neighborhood 8 would include divided pedestrian corridor that would be the eastern landing of the Sorrento pedestrian over-crossing of Grafton Street, with the western bridge landing located in Sorrento West. Neighborhood 9 would include row, tuck under townhouse and stacked flat buildings in flat pad and split pad configurations. Building heights for the stacked flat units would range from 36' 7" (along street frontages) stepping down to approximately 45' 7" at the rear of the lots, which would have a lower grade. Neighborhoods 10 and 11 would be developed with traditional single family dwellings on individual lots. A Neighborhood Park site would be located in the east-central portion of the Project site. Park improvements would be constructed by others. Building, Urban Design, Open Space and Landscaping. The overall design of the proposed Project would include a mix of attached and detached medium density residences with a majority of the dwellings organized within green courts and alleys. The Project continues the concept of creating a high quality and attractive community composed of six neighborhoods surrounding centrally located amenities of parks, linked trail systems, community recreation facilities and open space systems. Project uses would generally placed in the same location as previously approved. Architectural and landscape elements and details are proposed to relate to and maintain the Italian hill town character established in the existing Sorrento project. The Project would also provide a visible and connected vehicular access and pedestrian circulation consistent with the existing topography, building infrastructure and adjacent residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood areas and street alignments would generally adhere to the previous Sorrento East plan. City of Dublin Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 Page 9 February 2010 The architectural scale and style are intended to blend in with the existing adjacent neighborhoods of Sorrento West. Varying roof configurations and massing would be employed to reflect the flavor of the hillside European hillside villages in Italy. Proposed landscaping would include a neighborhood street scene that would have a mix of architectural styles, with sidewalks connecting the front door of the homes to the street. Various entry monuments would be located to emphasize the passage into the project, neighborhoods, and courtyards. Streets would typically have separated sidewalks with landscape parkways or tree planting bays within the parking lane. Landscape walls, accents and sidewalks would be used to emphasize the pedestrian experience by connecting together the various neighborhoods, recreational centers, parks and school. Building Heights. Heights of the buildings within the Sorrento East Project would range from generally 26 feet to 65 feet for architectural tower structures. Access and Circulation. Vehicular access within the Project site would include single main access points from Central Parkway and Lockhart Street and two main drives and one secondary drive from Grafton Street. No direct vehicular access would be provided from Gleason Drive. The circulation system is shown on Exhibit 4. Within the Project, primary north-south vehicular access would be provided by Lee Thompson Street. This street would intersect Central Parkway to the south and provide a lengthy frontage along the western boundary of the proposed neighborhood park site. Palermo Way would provide primary east-west vehicular circulation, extending between Grafton Street in the west to Lockhart Street in the east. Palermo Way would provide access to both the proposed neighborhood park as well as to an elementary school site, which is not a part of the Project. A number of smaller public local streets would provide access within each of the planned neighborhoods. Private interior alleys and courts would then serve individual dwellings within the Project. Sidewalks are that which connects this Project to Sorrento West. ;., Parking. Resident parking would be provided as part of each dwelling or multi-family building within the Project. This would include private enclosed garages for each dwelling unit along with on-street guest parking. Parking would be provided on the site that meets or exceeds City parking requirements. '" Utility Services. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide domestic and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services in accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan. City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 The Project Developer will be required to install local water lines as well as paying fees to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern Dublin, consistent with applicable DSRSD Facility Master Plans. Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground sewer lines to convey wastewater to DSRSD's downstream sanitary sewer mains and eventually to the regional treatment plant. Sewer lines are all proposed to be gravity flow. When available, recycled water maybe provided to the Project site for use in irrigation of common open space areas, neighborhood park, and other areas. This would reduce the need for potable water for the proposed Project. Storm drainage facilities would consist of constructing on-site drainage inlets and underground drainage pipes and connecting to existing facilities in public streets to transport storm water runoff into the regional Dublin Ranch water quality basin, Water Quality Protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management Practices to ensure water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. Storm water treatment for the Project is proposed to be accommodated by the existing Dublin Ranch regional water quality basin located downstream of the project area near Interstate 580. The basin incorporates vegetative bio-filters and other devices for final stormwater treatment prior to disposal into regional drainage facilities. Project Grading. The site has been mass graded into terraces to accommodate buildings, utilities, and other improvements for the previously approved Sorrento East Project. Necessary permits have been obtained prior to grading operations from appropriate federal, state and local agencies. More refined grading is proposed to occur based on the final site and grading plans. Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Dublin's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) requires that 12.5 percent of the number of swelling units in each development project be reserved for occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households. This requirement can be met by construction of the specified number of dwellings, payment of in-lieu fees to the City for up to 5% of the requirement, dedicating land for construction of future housing projects, rehabilitating existing qualifying units, or any combination thereof, or by alternative methods approved by the City Council. The approved project (694 units) was subject to credits for affordable housing as part of the greater Dublin Ranch. The Project's inclusionary housing requirement has therefore been satisfied. Parks and Recreation. The approved project includes 694 units and would have constructed a 5.0 net acre neighborhood park and a private recreational facility. The `° proposed Project would decrease the number of units by 113 dwellings and includes a 5.1 net acre neighborhood parkin addition to one private community recreation facility, similar to Sorrento West. The park would not be built by the Sorrento East developer. City of Dublin Page 11 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 aM PA 08-002 3-,s~~ ~ Phasing. It anticipated that the proposed Sorrento East Project would be constructed in several phases. Phasing for the overall proposed Project is unknown and subject to market demands. Utility connections, access, grading and emergency services would - be provided to meet the requirements of the City of Dublin and other potentially affected service providers. r Public Art. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the Project developer will install public art on the Site. Development Agreement. A Development Agreement has been approved for this Project and the Agreement is proposed to be amended to reflect the revised Project as described above. Requested land use entitlements. Amendments to the following land use entitlements have been requested to allow implementation of the proposed Project: • Stage 1 Development Plan (PA 01-037), • Stage 2 Development Plan (PA 04-042), • Site Development Review (PA 04-042), • Vesting Tentative Maps 7651-7656 (PA 04-042) and 7982-7983, and • Development Agreement. City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 0 " 10 Miles EXHIBIT 1-REGIONAL LOCATION INITIAL STUDY SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F City of Dublin January 2010 ~~ ~ ~: 1-05-2010 14:44:08 Ivilhauer P:\19394\planning\is-EXH1-RegionglLocgtion.dwg """`° ~.o. "'°""' San Francisco Pacific Ocean ~1 ~ ~~_ ,- '-~ EA r EXHIBIT 2-PROJECT SITE LOCATION Il~IITIAL STUDY SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F City of Dublin January 2010 1-05-2010 14:42:57 Ivilhauer P:\19394\planning\is-EXH2-CityContextdwg N O R T H errs ~~~ nowea~ a paq am AREA F NORTH ~.:-~. GLEASON D12IVE EXHIBIT 3-SITE CONTEXT ~, INITIAL STUDY SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F City of Dublin January 2010 -OS-2010 14:42:32 Ivilhguer P:\19394\planning\is-EXH3-SiteContextdwg NORTH Ms ~~~ neswo~ a psi fsoo ~~~;1~ k ~ r, i~~t ~ i i`/~~, i ° ~ L v s1~--,--~ ~5~-~ r' 1 "~ . ~ --- GLEA.SGN DRIVE --.-.-~~. ~ P/SP i~ -~%/-''' ~~~ P/SP ~~ ~! (Multi-Use Trail) 0.6 ac gross F Sorrento West at 0.6 ac net Dublin Ranch Area F v NS A ac gm 2.0 x act M ~, a 1. l ac gross 34.8 ac net Sorrento East at Dublin Ranch Area F s.e ac gross I ~oB ran) 5.0 ac nM ,~.,~..~. - ~__.._ M -~ ~ f _ ~'~~ 1 ~ 62.3 AC Gross ~ ~, ~ 54.9 AC Net - ~ ~ ~p~, a -~ ~ , SP ~ AYE - -_ -- - R ~°-- """"-~i ~ .~ ~ • '~ ~ ''tea" ~ ~ - _ ; '""rm" ,~ ~ '~ '`i ~ ~ tom.,.. ~.. :' ~~ u\~ l !~~f' CP ~- / (Future Fallon %, J ( Sports Pack) ~~ 1 7 << ' ~-OS 1 ~` tea''' \ r ~, ,,,.~.~_ a , ~ M - . ~u `t" ~, - ~ EXHIBIT 4-PROPOSED STAGE 1 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN IlvITIAL STUDY SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F N O R T H City of Dublin ~s January 2010 ~~~ 1-05-2010 14:42:08 Ivilhauer P:~19394~planning~is-EXH4-PDt.dwg """"° A°~0" oa 451 ~.' -,, , ~~ '.--~, i 1 i ~\ i Il~ITIAL STUDY SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F City of Dublin January 2010 1-OS-2010 14:38:49 Ivilhouer P:\19394\planning\is-EXH5-PD2.dw N O R T H NTS IIIACKAY 8c SO~IPS wcwcws n,wc9s wmrt,ws RGVNION, G (975) 2]5-O6W ~-~ ~ ~ ~ -ate v~ i~ .....7 p ; ~ ~ 'iC / Ex:HIBIT 5-PROPOSED STAGE 2 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~~ g (t3~ 451 1. Project description An amendment to the existing PD Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review approval, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map(s) and an amendment to an existing Development Agreement to allow the construction of up to 581 attached and detached dwelling units and a neighborhood park site on approximately 68 gross acres of land. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94583 3. Contact person: Michael A. Porto, Dublin Community Development Department (925) 833 6610 4. Project Location: Bounded by Central Parkway to the south, Grafton Street to the west, Lockhart Street to the east and Gleason Drive to the north. APNs 985-0053-008, 985-053-009 and 985-0053-010. 5. Project contact person: 6. Existing General Plan/ Specific Plan Land Use Designation 7. Existing Zoning Pat Costanzo SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC MDR-Medium Density Residential and NP- Parks & Recreation PD- Planned Development 8. Other public agency necessary and/or desired approvals: City of Dublin Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 • Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and Building Permits (City of Dublin) • Sewer and water connections (DSRSD) • Encroachment permits (City of Dublin) • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) Page 18 February 2010 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below may 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. - Aes etics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - 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 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. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR and MND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and MND, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration 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. City of Dublin Page 19 . Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 _ 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 _µ 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. Signature: ~ ~ vti/-t., ~ Date: Z l L~~ ~ Printed Name: P'(,~~ Pw-b For: ~`i ~~' 0•~(.~- City of Dublin Page 20 x Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact" answers are supported by the information sources the 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), or, in this case, there is no impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered previously in the 1993 EIR, and / or the 2000 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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, 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a supplemental effect is significant. It there are one or more ~'" "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than significant impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 21 m Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~ ~, .. 'w~ EnvirOilmental ImpaCtS (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See 4k~ listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the ~~ checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 1,2,5) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,2,5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 1,5) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2,3,5) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 2,3, 4) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,6) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 4,6) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2,3) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2,3) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 "~ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2,364) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4) -~ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 5) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project _ ~ a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 2,3 ,4) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2,3,4) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? ` (Source: Source: 2,3,4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 3,4) { e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3) ~,~le ~ X15 I Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No I Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2,3) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2,3) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2,3) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2, 3) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 2, 3) iv) Landslides? (Source 2, 3, 4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2,3) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2, 3,7) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2, 7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or Option wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2, 7) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Source: 7) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 7) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 7) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2, 5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2, 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti a[ion Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 `~ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 2, 5) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 4) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (2,3,5) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,3,5) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3, 5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 77) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 6) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood '`"" delineation map? (Source: 2,7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact ~' ~' X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (7) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: _~" a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2, 5) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 2, 5) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1,2,5) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1, 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local General Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source:l, 2) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2,3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2,3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2) ~~''rC~ `~!~7 ~' i Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 Page 27 February 2010 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (2, 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to - excessive noise levels? (Source: 2, 4) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 5) ~' b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (5) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 6, 7) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities. the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 3, 6) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 3~~~ ~~ 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2, 5) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2, 6) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source 2, 3) -:u~ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for _. designated roads or highways? (2, 3) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (2,3) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (2, 3) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting Option transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 7) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ~' Board? (2, 4, 6) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 4, 6) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2, 4, 6) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2, 4, 6) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 5) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 6) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X ~ X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ,~ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? " ~ ~~ Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X sources usea to aetermme potenuai environmental impacts 1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan 2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan EIR 3. 2000 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. H.T. Harvey Biological Resources letter 5. Site Visit 6. Discussion with service provider 7. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following environmental documents have been used in the preparation of the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. • Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH #91103064) • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning Area F, November 1999 (SCH # 99112942) • Initial Study /Addendum EIR for Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, E and F, February 2004 City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 -3~5~u~1 Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Settinc The Project is set in a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, adopted in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the Eastern Dublin area was (at the time of the EIR preparation) visually dominated by expanses of grasslands and rolling hills. Generally, at the time the EDSP was adopted, the southerly portion of the EDSP area that contains the Project site was flat, open and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops. In the northerly portions, steeper foothills framed canyons settled with farms and ranchettes. In 1993, the EDGPA/EDSP planning area was undeveloped at urban levels and conveyed a distinct rural atmosphere characteristic of the inland coastal valleys of Northern California. Currently, the southerly and central portions of the EDSP are primarily developed. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the EDGPA/EDSP, urban development has proceeded in Eastern Dublin in accordance with these land use ~` regulatory documents. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the effects of urbanizing vacant lands and identified ~~ significant and unavoidable impacts 3.8/B and 3.8/F regarding alteration of the area's rural, open space character. Visual and aesthetic impacts were further discussed in the 2000 MND. The Project site is vacant and contains no structures. The Project site has been mass graded pursuant to permits issued by the City of Dublin and existing topography is *~ characterized by a number of incised low areas mixed with flatter areas. No trees or rock outcroppings exist on the site. Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway approximately one-half mile south of the site. Surrounding properties to the north, south and west consist of urban uses, primarily medium and low-density residential dwellings. Property east of the Project site is vacant and a City park is under construction on this site. As an undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site, although street lights have been installed on portions of Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, Lockhart Street and a portion of Palermo Street. -- City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 Re ug latory framework and Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of this document is to implement EDSP visual protection polices as related to individual development projects. The document contains the following overall implementing policies for Eastern Dublin scenic corridors. 1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural landforms and topography. 2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied features of the landscape. 3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned and sensitively sited to respect natural topography. 4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development visible for all development visible from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700 feet of a Scenic Corridor. 5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridor harmonizes with the scenic environment. Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of impacts and mitigation measures applicable to this Project to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/A) to ales-than-significant level. This mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to ales-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of policies to preserve the natural beauty of the hills, creeks and major stands of vegetation. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ',_k i .~"1 ~ ~ ~; • Mitigation Measures 3.8 / 7.0 and 7/ 1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8 / I) `~ to ales-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. The 2000 MND contains Mitigation Measure 1 that requires pole-mounted street lights to be equipped with cut-off lenses and directed downward and building security light fixtures to be directed downward. The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one potentially significant impact with regard to scenic vistas: Impact 3.8/I, development of the Eastern Dublin area that will alter the character of scenic vistas and may obscure important ridgelands. Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7.1 were adopted to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. These measures require preserving views of open spaces and requires the City to conduct a visual survey of the Eastern Dublin area to identify and map viewsheds of scenic areas. Mitigation Measure 3.8 / 7.1 has been implemented by the City through the preparation and adoption of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The Policies and Standards document do not include any design recommendations for the proposed Sorrento East Project or immediately surrounding areas. Development of the site would not substantially obscure ridgelands or other scenic vistas. Since the proposed Project includes the same type, design and a lower density as the originally approved Project that has been analyzed in the 2000 MND, no new or more severe impacts with regard to scenic vistas beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? LS. Impacts to scenic resources have been analyzed in item "a," above. The Project site is located approximately three-quarters to one mile north of the nearest designated scenic highway, I-580. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with regard to scenic resources adjacent to a scenic highway beyond those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. The Project site is vacant and contains no trees, rock outcroppings or other significant visual features and has been mass-graded pursuant to previous City approvals. Alteration of the rural and open space character of the Eastern Dublin area was determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact in the 1993 Eastern City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 Dublin EIR on both a project and cumulative level. A Statement of Gverriding Concerns was approved with adoption of the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific Plan for this impact. Approval and construction of the Sorrento East Project would be consistent with this finding and no new or more severe impacts would result with regard to degradation of the visual character of the site beyond those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR. d) Create light or glare? LS. The Project site contains no light sources and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights along internal roadways as well as new housing and yard lights. Properties adjacent to the Project site to the north, south and west are developed and contain light sources. The potential effect of increased light and glare on and off the Project site was analyzed in the 2000 MND. The 2000 MND found that increased levels of light and glare generated by development on the Project site would be a potentially significant impact. The 2000 MND contains Mitigation Measure 1 that requires pole-mounted street lights be equipped with cut-off lenses and be oriented downward to minimize spill over of unwanted light and glare. Building security light fixtures are also required to be directed in a downward fashion. Final building and improvement plans for the Sorrento East Project will be required to comply with this mitigation measure. 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting ~. Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project Site as "lands of locally important farmlands." The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the Project site was not subject to a Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement. The Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000) identifies the Project site as "urban and built up land." The site is fallow and is not used for grazing or crop production. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.1 / F, the cumulative loss of agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of agricultural operations to be less-than-significant. 2000 MND. No other impacts related to agricultural resources were identified in the 2000 MND document. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 :~ r~ r~"~j ~~.~ I Pro'ec~ t Impacts a,c)~ Convert prime farmland to anon-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural use ? NI. The Project site is not used for agricultural production, although it was farmed in the past, and is surrounded on three sides-north, south and west--with intensive urban development. The eastern boundary of the site is planned for a Community Park. Impacts relating to converting the larger Eastern Dublin planning area, including the Sorrento East site, from previous farming and grazing operations to a range of urban uses were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in no new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural resources beyond those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI. The proposed Project is presently zoned Planned Development that permits urban uses and there is no existing agricultural zoning on the site. Approval of the proposed Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act Agreement, since none currently exist on the Property. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts would result with regard to these topics than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents for this site. 3. Air Quality Environmental Settin Air pollution climatolo~y. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore Valley 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. The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. "~ The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 90% of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall. High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. Ambient air quality standards Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects and major sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 4. The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and particulate matter (PMlo and PMz.s)• Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. "Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined as "suspended particulate matter" or PMlo. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PMz.s). PMZ ~, by definition, is included in PMlo• Ambient air quality. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site is in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring site for the period 2005-2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air quality City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 t~ standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone and PMIO are exceeded. Attainment status and regional air duality plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was designated as unclassifiable /attainment for the federal PMIO and PM2.5 standards. Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is anon-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PMlo and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified for other pollutants. Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air. Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality) and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard. City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~OZ"I.j ~~° ~ Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources pollutant created by the action of Respiratory function ozone precursors are sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. combustion sources (primarily reactive hydrocarbons such as factories and and oxides of nitrogen. Often automobiles, and called photochemical smog. evaporation of solvents and fuels. Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, Impairment of oxygen Automobile exhaust, Monoxide colorless gas that is highly toxic. It transport in the combustion of fuels, is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood combustion of fuels. ,Aggravation of in woodstoves and cardiovascular disease. fireplaces. Fatigue, headache, confusion, dizziness. Can be fatal in the case of very high concentrations. Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors Increased risk of acute Automobile and Dioxide the air, formed during combustion. and chronic respiratory diesel truck exhaust, disease. industrial processes, fossil-fueled power lants. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle with a pungent, irritating odor. obstruction lung exhaust, oil- disease. powered power Increased risk of acute plants, industrial and chronic respiratory processes. disease. Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of chronic Combustion, Matter soot, aerosols and other matter disease and heart/lung automobiles, field which are small enough to remain disease symptoms. burning, factories suspended in the air for a long and unpaved roads. period of time. Also a result of photochemical processes. Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009 City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Federal State Time Primary Standard Standard Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM 8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM 1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM 1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM -- 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM 1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM PMIO Annual Average -- 20 Ng/m3 24-Hour 150 Ng / m3 50 N / m3 PM2 5 Annual 15 Ng / m3 12 N g / m3 24-Hour 35 Ng / m3 -- Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 ~g/m3 -- 30 Day Average -- 1.5 N / m3 Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ~g/m3 -- Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM -- Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM -- PPM =Parts per Million g/m3 =Micrograms per Cubic Meter Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04 / 01 / 08) http: / / www.arb.ca.~ov/research/ aags / aags2.pdf City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~~~-~ y-a Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007 Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In: 2005 2006 2007 Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2 Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3 Ozone Federal8-Hour 1 5 1 PMIO Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0 PMIO State 24-Hour 0 3 2 PM2.5 Federa124-Hour 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide State/ Federal 8-Hour 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0 Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http: //www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart) Sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as faalities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing residences just west of the site (Sorrento West) and proposed City parks on the Project site and to the east of the site. An elementary school is proposed just east of and outside the Project site. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, 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. There is no current statute, regulation, or case law that requires the analysis of greenhouse gasses and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR the 2000 MND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR has been certified and subsequent CEQA documents adopted, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (see 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 known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the 2000 MND adopted or the 2004 City of Dublin Page 41 £, Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 y~~ ~~ Addendum EIR adopted. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the 2000 MND and 2004 Addendum. 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 analyzes of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993, adoption of the Area F MND in 2000 and the 2004 Addendum. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts (IM 3.11 / A) to less than significant through measures such as watering construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks, and cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative impact remained significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 /B) but not to a less- than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures, many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11 / E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable. 2000 MND. No other air quality impacts or mitigation measures were included in the 2000 MND. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous CEQA documents. Pro~'ect Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased stationary source air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that would remain significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 12.0 and 13.0. The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these two impacts. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on ABAG's Projections '09, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed Project would be consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would have fewer residential units than currently approved. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan than has been previously analyzed. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / C). Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact, including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program, encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Existing Stage 1 Planned Development zoning allow a maximum of 694 dwellings of various types and densities. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development zoning would allow for 581 dwellings, 113 fewer dwellings than have been analyzed in previously adopted CEQA documents. In addition, the Project design provides many pedestrian and bicycle connections on and offsite to neighboring uses. In these ways, the Project implements EDEIR mitigations to reduce vehicle trips and related emissions and congestion. As such, the Project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than previously identified. As noted in the EDEIR, however, the Project reductions would reduce but not avoid the identified significant unavoidable impact. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~( D`~ ~ 4 ~.~ ! Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11 / 1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies the construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during construction phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be required to adhere to these requirements. Since the BAAQMD has adopted additional and more stringent dust control measures since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, a condition of Project approval will require that Project construction activities comply with the most recent construction air quality reduction strategies adopted by the BAAQMD. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. See item "b." d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. The proposed Project would include a residential development that would not include manufacturing or similar land uses, so no significant pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors would be created and no impact would result. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project site is dominated by non-native grassland and dryland-farmed (grain crops) habitats (See EDSP EIR Figure 3.7-A). Biological analyses and wetland delineations were conducted for the Eastern Dublin EIR as well as the 2000 MND, describing both habitat and species present in the Project area, and information on wetland resources. As noted in the Project Description section, the Project site has been mass graded pursuant to United States Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits as well as a City of Dublin grading permit. A letter has been prepared by the Project biologist (H.T. Harvey Associates, dated December 22, 2008), summarizing existing biological conditions on the site and indicating that Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures have been or will be complied with prior to future construction. This letter is included as Appendix 1 and is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. The graded area included ponds with habitat value and species as identified in the prior CEQA reviews; however, species such as California red-legged frog and California Tiger Salamander were relocated to offsite mitigation areas, again, in conformance with applicable permits and requirements. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~o~ ~~~, ~ "~" Special-status plant and wildlife species The Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND provide background information on the potential for special-status and sensitive plant and wildlife species that could potentially occur in the Project area. With the permitted grading on the Project site and related offsite mitigation and species relocation, many of the species are no longer expected to occur in the Project area. Mitigation measures addressing these species have been incorporated into the wetland fill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 23, 2003. In accordance with the permit conditions, red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders have been relocated to an off-site mitigation area. Wetlands Jurisdictional wetlands were addressed in the Project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR and, the 2000 MND. As noted by the HT Harvey letter of December 22, 2008, a wetland fill permit was issued by the USACE and the wetlands in the vicinity of the Project have been filled. Re ug latorv Framework and Previous CEQA documents The regulatory framework for this Project includes the previous CEQA documents and regulations for stream protection. Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: ,~ Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7 / A) to aless-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to aless-than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 • Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to ales-than-significant level. These measures require consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to ales-than-significant level. This measure requires completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance. The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures °rv regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard. 2000 MND. Mitigation Measure 2 within the 2000 MND was included to mitigate loss of San Joaquin spearscale and Congdon s tarplant species as well as to protect Burrowing Owl and American badger and other wildlife species to a level of less-than- significant. Mitigation Measure 2 remains in force and any remaining requirements will be met prior to any development on the site. The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures set forth in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? NI. The potential for,special-status species to occur the Project has changed since 2004 (the last CEQA document) with respect to habitat availability. Consistent with existing Project approvals and mitigation measures, habitat has been removed from the site during construction of infrastructure throughout the Dublin Ranch Project areas and grading of the Sorrento East Project site has occurred. There are no new special-status species on the site that were not present at the time of the 2000 MND, when a comprehensive biological reconnaissance was completed. In addition, numerous, typically monthly, preconstruction surveys for special-status wildlife species have been conducted on or in areas adjacent to the Project site since 2003 for the larger Dublin Ranch Project. This is documented in the HT Harvey letter (Appendix 1). As part of previous grading of the Project site, necessary permits have been obtained from appropriate state and federal agencies prior to grading operations, including but not limited to permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Project applicant will be required to conduct pre-construction surveys on the ~~ site as required by mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND. With adherence to these measures, previously identified impacts to special-status species will be less-than-significant. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ltd ~~~I No new or more severe impacts would result with regard to biological resources beyond those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND for this site. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? NI. The Project site has been mass graded in accord with federal and state permits and approvals as well as a grading permit issued by the City of Dublin. No wetlands, waters of the US, waters of the State or riparian habitat exist on the site and no impact will occur. Also refer to the HT Harvey letter in Appendix 1. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated with regard to wetlands or riparian habitats on the site beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents for the Project site. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. Two small intermittent drainage channels formerly traversed the site, but have been filled as part of Corps- and CDFG-permitted grading operations on the Project site as well as consistent with a City grading permit. However, no significant wildlife movement occurs on or across the site, due to existing streets and surrounding development, therefore, development is not expected to preclude any significant wildlife movements. No new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. e, fl Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No significant stands of trees are present on the site, and there are no impacts with regard to local tree preservation ordinances or policies. The site is not located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans. Overall, no impacts to biological resources not previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND for Area F are expected to occur as a result of this Project. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR contains a comprehensive listing of historic, archeological, Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern Dublin area. Chapter 3.9 of the EIR, Cultural Resources, does not identify the presence of identified archeological or prehistoric resources on the Project site. The site is vacant and does not contain any structures, so that no above ground historic resources are present on the site. The entire site has been disturbed as a result of mass grading of the site pursuant to a City of Dublin grading permit and issuance of permits by appropriate biological regulatory agencies. City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~ I I t~~ ~~ I Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated cultural resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.9/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result "~ of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (Impact 3.9/A). These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of µ such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/B) to a less-than- significant level by requiring that construction activity cease if historic or prehistoric remains are discovered. 2000 MND. This document contains Mitigation Measure 4 that requires the Project developer to stop work upon finding any prehistoric resource during construction and that a qualified archeologist inspects such find. If necessary a plan to retrieve or document the find shall be implemented prior to re-start of work. The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project site is vacant and contains no structures of any kind, so there would be no impacts with regard to historic resources on the site. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) require subsurface testing for archeological resources if such are found during site disturbance; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (then Appendix K). Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, also were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 3.9/B, the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources. These measures require cessation of construction activities until uncovered cultural resources can be assessed by a qualified archeologist and a remediation plan approved by the City of Dublin consistent with CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4 contained in the 2000 MND also requires preparation of a contingency plan to be City of Dublin Initial Study/Sorrento East Project PA 08-002 Page 48 February 2010 implemented during Site construction in the event a cultural resources is uncovered. No new or more significant impacts with regard to archeological or paleontological impacts beyond those previously analyzed are therefore anticipated should the Project be approved. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be uncovered on the site during grading and construction activities. At the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on unknown and unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist item, as in current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological Impacts, specifically addressed human remains, which provisions now have been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the Project pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. Miiigation Measure 4 contained in the 2000 MND reflects this change to the CEQA Guidelines and was adopted to mitigate potential impacts to human remains that could be disfixrbed during Project construction. No new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified are anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains with adherence to these Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, as well as Mitigation Measure 4 contained in the 2000 MND. No new mitigation measures are required. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern Dublin EIR and reviewed in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2000 MND was based on a document entitled "Geotechnical Report, Dublin Ranch, Pao-Yeh Lin Property, Tassajara Road, Dublin California" prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants in August 1999. This document is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. This geotechnical report notes that the Project site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone area as identified by the State of California (formerly known as an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone). The risk of ground rupture from active faulting is considered low. The Sorrento East Project site is underlain by alluvial (stream) deposits consisting of a mix of clay material, clayey silt and sand. This type of soil is considered expansive, with a potentially high degree of swell when wet and a high degree of shrinkage when dry. The geotechnical report did not identify the presence of liquefaction on the site, since soil conditions are not susceptible to this type of soil hazard. Liquefaction is the City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 :,, temporary transformation of saturated soil to a viscous liquid state during strong ~g seismic activity. The result of liquefaction is moderate to severe damage to building foundations, roads and other improvements. The risk of landslide and mudflows is considered low since site topography and the topography of surrounding areas contain generally rolling hillsides with minimal risk of landslide. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIl'~. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed a number of impacts and contains mitigation measures to reduce anticipated soils, geologic ad seismic impacts to a less- than-significant level. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/ 1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to ales-than-significant level. ~~_ This mitigation measure requires that structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9 / C) to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, design of structures to account of potential soil failure and preparation of design-level geotechnical studies. • Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial r> alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. • Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and `~ sedimentation (IM 3.6 / L) to ales-than-significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control faalities into individual development projects, City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. 200 MND. The 2000 MND did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation measures related to soils or geotechnical issues. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? NI. Although the Project is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6 /Band 3.6 / C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 1.0 and adherence to the California Building Code, there would be no impacts related to primary effects of groundshaking beyond those analyzed in previous environmental documents. This mitigation measure will be implemented by the City of Dublin Building Division prior to issuance of building permits for this Project. Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of seismic ground shaking on proposed Project improvements. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to exposure of people or structures not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND is anticipated ~~ and no additional analysis is required. The above mitigation measures will continue to apply to the Sorrento East Project. The Dublin City Council included Impact 3.6/B from the Eastern Dublin EIR in the Statement of Overriding Considerations when approving the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. This impact found that primary effects of earthquake ground shaking within the Eastern Dublin area as a significant impact even after mitigation. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Construction of the proposed improvements on the Project site would modify the existing ground surface to allow for the proposed development Project and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Impacts 3.6 / K and L addressed construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 will reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. The developer of this Project will also be required to comply with provisions of the Alameda County Clean Water Program to reduce short-term and long-term operational runoff from the Project site. These provisions require approval of a Stormwater Pollution City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 415~4t~! Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of site grading and adherence to Best Management Practices during the operational phase of the Project. Best Management Practices typically include installation of silt fences, desilting basins and similar features. Consistency with these erosion control requirements will be made conditions of Project approval by the Dublin Public Works Department as is normally and customarily done during the development review process. With adherence to the above mitigation measures and requirements, no new or more severe erosion impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. Portions of the Project site are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6 / H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 14.0 through 16.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, there would be no significant shrink-swell impacts beyond those previously identified. These measures require project developers to use appropriately designed building foundations and to use other construction techniques to reduce shrink-swell, such as moisture conditioning prior to construction and installation of appropriate surface and subsurface drainage. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to soil hazards than analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other site-specific CEQA documents are anticipated and no additional analysis is needed. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. Proposed development on the Project site would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The issues of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. However, this topic was addressed in the 2000 MND and was found to be less-than-significant based on asite-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Berlogar Associates dated September 25, 1997 for the Dublin Ranch portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. This report is incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The Berlogar report concluded that no obvious potentially hazardous materials were observed based on soil sampling. Similarly, no detectable levels of pesticide or herbicide contamination was encountered. City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~~~~ The 1997 report was updated by ENGEO in a report dated June 29, 2006. This report is also incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The 2006 update concludes on page 6 that "based on the scope and findings of this assessment, no Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) are identified for the Property." The Project site was not listed in environmental data bases as a hazardous site, a v hazardous materials generator, hazardous materials transporter or a site containing underground storage tanks. The Project site is located within both the General Referral Area and the Height Referral Area of Livermore Municipal Airport, now known as the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Previous CEQA document The 2000 MND referenced the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment documents completed in 1997 that found no significant amounts of hazardous materials on Planning Area F. Project Impacts a-c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental release of hazardous materials or emit or handle hazardous materials, substances or wastes within a quarter mile radius of a school? NI. The 2000 MND found that the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials was less-than-significant since proposed land uses on the site would include minor and less-than-significant quantities of potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored on the site. These would typically include landscape maintenance products, paints, solvents building repair products and similar normal and customary materials. The construction of a residential development on the site would not change the use or storage of these materials. No changes to conditions on the site have occurred since 2000 with regard to hazardous materials. Although an elementary school site exists just east of but outside the Project site, none of the planned uses would result in significant impacts with respect to the use, storage or transport of significant amounts of hazardous material that could impact the planned public school. Therefore, no new impacts related to hazardous materials beyond those analyzed in the 2000 MND are anticipated. d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. No properties comprising the Project site are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as '"' an identified hazardous site as of December 14, 2009. There is therefore no impact with regard to this topic and no additional analysis is needed. "" e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS. The 2000 MND noted that the Project site is located northwest of Livermore Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that the site is within the City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 .~ ~ ~~ ~-~ ~ r: Airport Referral Area for Livermore Airport. Proposed building heights within the proposed Project would not exceed typical heights of surrounding buildings constructed in this area of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. As required by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy Plan, development plans for this site will be referred to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Policy Plan prior to issuance of a building permit. No new or more significant impacts with regard to airport safety beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents are anticipated. g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would include the construction of a residential development on private land. The City's Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which provides for emergency evacuation procedures, would not be affected since no roadways that could be used for emergency evacuation would be blocked or otherwise impeded. The Project would also provide access to emergency vehicles as well as pedestrian and vehicle exits from the site for emergency egress. No impact would therefore result. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified mitigation measures for impacts to fire services generally as well as in high fire hazard open space areas (Impacts 3.4/C and E). With adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new impacts related to wildland fire would result. Mitigation Measures 3.4/6.0 to 13.0 require measures such as requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire stations ,requiring use of non-combustible roof materials, maintaining water fire flow and pressure, establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland areas and installing fire sprinklers in buildings. These requirements will be made conditions of approval for the proposed Project, as appropriate. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated that were not analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and no additional analysis is needed. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Project site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, asub-basin of the Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`5 t Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francesco Bay. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on polices identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. In general, surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from structures, parking areas and open space uses, including but not limited to _ petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers), and similar sources. Flooding The site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see Community Panel #060011C 328G). Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are: • Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 reduced the potentially significant impact of flooding from increased runoff (Impact 3.5/Y). These measures require storm drainage master planning (MM 3.5/46.0), natural channel improvements ~' wherever possible (MM 3.5/45.0) and that drainage faclities minimize any increased potential for erosion or flooding (MM 3.5/44.0), and provision of facilities to control downstream flooding (MM 3.5/47.0). The EIR found that with City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 the implementation of these mitigation measures potential flooding impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. • Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 49.0 and 50.0 reduced the impact of reduced groundwater recharge areas to an insignificant level (Impact 3.5 / Z). The two mitigation measures require that facilities be planned and management practices selected that protect and enhance water quality and that Zone 7 programs for -° groundwater recharge be supported. Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 -55.OA reduced the impact of non-point source pollution into local waterways, including urban runoff, non-stormwater discharges, subsurface drainages and construction runoff (Impact 3.5/AA). With the implementation of mitigation measures requiring each development to prepare project-specific water quality investigations addressing this issue, the development of a community-based non-point-source control education program and other requirements, this potential impact and potential cumulative impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND identified two additional impacts and mitigation measures related to Hydrology and Water Quality that would be applicable to this Project. Mitigation Measure 5 requires developers within Area F to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to reduce construction and post-construction water quality impacts to aless-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 6 requires project developers within Area F to prepare and submit drainage and hydrology studies to the Dublin Public Works Department that summarizes historic drainage flows from the site, estimated increases in the amount of stormwater as a result of project development and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate increased drainage flows. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. The issue of water quality standards was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was Impact 3.5/AA, non-point sources of water pollution. Water quality was also addressed in the 2000 MND. Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 51.0 through 55.0 and MND Mitigation Measure 5 ensure that the Project development and improvements shall reflect the most current water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. No new or more severe water quality impacts beyond those previously identified will result from the Project. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The Project site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the site rezoning in 2000. Impact 3.5 / Z contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin area already has minimal recharge capabilities and that approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could reduce the amount of undeveloped land in the region used for groundwater recharge. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0 would reduce this impact to a level ofless-than-significant. These mitigation City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~~..r~ measures require local water supply agencies to plan facilities and undertake management to protect and enhance water quality and to support Zone Ts on- going water recharge efforts. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed development of the Project site, so the Project would result in no new or more severe impacts than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. c, d) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. New impervious surfaces would be added to the site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces that precludes water infiltration and results in stormwater runoff. Development of the site was anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 44.0 through 3.5 / 48.0 were included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to require each individual project developer in the Eastern Dublin planning area to contribute to localized and regional drainage facilities to accommodate increased levels of stormwater runoff, minimize flooding and to alleviate erosion. Individual project developers are also required to prepare a Storm Drainage Plan to investigate pre-project drainage and hydrologic conditions and design drainage facilities to accommodate increased runoff to minimize flooding. Storm Drain Master Plans are reviewed and approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Drainage facilities identified in the master plans are made conditions of project approval. No stream corridors are located on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts related to changes in drainage patterns or increases in the amount of stormwater runoff are antiapated that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EI or the 2000 MND. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. Refer to item "c, d," above. Also see Mitigation Measure 6 contained in the 2000 MND. f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Refer to item "a," above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone as identified by the FEMA flood hazard mapping. This is identified in the Environmental Setting section of this Initial Study and no impact would result with regard to this topic and no additional analysis is required. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water that could be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties all have a City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 gentle slope to the south, without any major hillsides or other areas that could °` cause mudflows on to the site. Therefore, this no impact would result regarding this impact. 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Existing land uses The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no habitable structures. Regulatory setting Land use on the Project site is regulated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The General Plan and EDSP designate the Project site as a combination of "Medium Density Residential" and "Neighborhood Park." Existing land use entitlements on the Project site allows construction of up to 694 dwelling units as well as a 5.2 net acre neighborhood park and two private recreational faalities. The Applicant has requested amendment to these existing entitlements that would allow a decrease in the number of units by 113. A 5.1 net acre Neighborhood Park and a community recreational faality are included in the amended request. Requested land use entitlements also include vesting tentative subdivision maps and an amended Development Agreement. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project site is located within a largely urbanized area of Eastern Dublin and adjacent to the Sorrento West residential development. The proposed Project would represent a continuation of the medium density residential development pattern established in the vicinity. Based on existing and planned land uses in the Project vicinity, no established communities would be disrupted and no new impacts would result that have not been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No additional analysis is required regarding this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The Project applicant has submitted an application to amend existing land use entitlements on the site. The applicant will be required to comply with all other land use policies and regulations as a condition of Project approval. No changes are proposed to the Dublin General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. The Project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. There are no impacts with regard to this Project and no additional analysis is required. ~~r City of Dublin Page 58 w Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Settin;7 Neither the General Plan, the EDSP, the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND identify the presence of significant mineral resources on the site. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable environmental reviews indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the Project site, so no impacts would occur. 11. Noise Environmental Settin;r 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. Re ug lator, sy etting The Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 6. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acce table Conditionally Acce table Normally Unacce table Clearly Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools, churches, nursin homes 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Neighborhood arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ Office/ Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ __ Source: Uublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 :.~ ~_"`~ The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter over flights from Camp Parks RFTA west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise . sources are identified adjacent to the Project area. Local noise sources. The Project site is bound by Gleason Drive to the north and Central Parkway to the south. These two arterials will be the primary sources of traffic noise that could potentially impact the onsite noise environment. Secondary sources include Grafton Street, Lockhart Street, and a few internal collectors. Interstate 580, located approximately 2500 feet south of Central Parkway, may also add to the nighttime noise environment. Another noise source that may be heard onsite includes occasional aircraft flyovers from the Livermore Municipal airport. The Project site lies within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport However, the airport noise contours do not come close to the Project site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to ales-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/E) to ales-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations. No additional noise impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 MND. The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures contained in the previous CEQA documents. Project Impacts a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. As development proceeds, the City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 roadways would generate increased noise levels at the Project site from increased vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as operational noise, including but not limited to mechanical equipment, normal outdoor activities associated with a residential project and similar sources. Potential noise impacts of this Project were assessed in Chapter 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Noise, as well as Section 11 of the 2000 MND. The proposed Project includes the general type of land uses included on this site in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As identified in the above section, potential noise impacts addressed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR included exposure of future housing to roadway noise (IM 3.10/A). As required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/ 1, the Project Developer submitted a detailed site specific acoustic analysis that recommends inclusion of a number of noise reduction construction techniques into the Sorrento East Project, including but not limited to installation of fences and walls at specific locations within the project and installation of noise barriers for outdoor balconies. With adherence to these noise reduction methods, which have been included in the Project, there would be no new or more severe impacts related to generation of noise levels above City noise standards beyond those assessed in previous CEQA documents. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS. The topic of significant groundborne vibration was not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The 2000 MND found no anticipated impacts since no sources of vibration such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads exist in the area. The proposed Project would include land uses typically found in the Eastern Dublin and would be constructed using normal and customary techniques that would not require pile driving or similar methods. No new or more severe impacts related to groundbourne impacts have been identified than were analyzed in the 2000 MND. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? NI. The proposed Project is required to adhere to construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to minimize the impacts of construction noise. These are Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0, which require all project developers in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area to prepare and adhere to Construction Noise Management Programs, which require limiting grading and other noise generating activities to the shortest period of time as possible, minimizing truck access through residential areas and limiting the hours and days of construction activities. With adherence to these measures, no supplemental impact would result regarding construction noise. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to construction noise impacts and no additional analysis is needed. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? LS. The Project site is located within the Livermore Municipal Airport Influence Area (AIA). The City of Dublin staff is required to refer this Project to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to ensure consistency with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan. A condition of City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA OS-002 Project approval will require that that building interior spaces shall comply with City and state noise level requirements. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The Project site is currently vacant and contains no dwellings. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The Project site has been planned for Medium Density and other land uses since adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5 / T) related to providing water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of uses on the site and surrounding areas was slightly modified in 2000 and in 2004 as identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. The current proposal would result in construction of a decrease of 113 dwellings from existing City land use approvals. This impact would therefore be less-than-significant. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact would result with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. No additional analysis is needed regarding this topic. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the Project site: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18, located northeast of the Project site at 4800 Fallon Road. • Police Protection. Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area. • Library Service. Alameda County Library service. The Dublin branch library is located in the Dublin civic center complex. City of Dublin Pa a 62 9 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CEQA documents Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: Impacts 3.4/A and B identified a potentially significant impact with police services demand and accessibility to the Eastern Dublin area. This impact was reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 1.0 that provides additional personnel and facilities and revision to police beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0 also reduces impacts to the Police Department by requiring incorporation of safety requirements into the requirements of future development projects, appropriate budgeting of police services by the City and police review of individual development projects in the Eastern Dublin area. • Impacts 3.4/ C identified a potentially significant impact with regard to increased demand for fire services in Eastern Dublin. This impact was reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.4 / 6.0 through 11.0. These measures require the timing of facilities to coincide with new serve demand from development, establishment of ,.P appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital fire improvements, acquisition of future fire stations in Eastern Dublin, and incorporation of Fire Department safety recommendations into the design of all future individual development projects in Eastern Dublin. 2000 MND. No additional public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 2000. The proposed Project is required to adhere to the above mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of residential development on the site would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department. The proposed development is required to adhere to existing mitigation measures identified above, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0), These impacts were analyzed and mitigated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further site-specific impacts were identified in he 2000 MND. City of Dublin Page 63 RW Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~z-1 ~ Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/ 9.0, proposed development on the Project site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access and using fire retardant building materials. No new or more severe impacts related to fire protection not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND is anticipated for the proposed Project. b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire protection, there would be an increase in police calls for service with development of the Project site (see Eastern Dublin EIR Impacts 3.4 / A and B), Mitigation Measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0) incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into the proposed Project, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). No new or more severe impacts related to police protection not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND is anticipated for the proposed Project. c) Schools? NI. No impacts to school service would result should the proposed Project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts pursuant to CEQA. An Elementary School site is located east of the Project site, however, approval and construction of this school is not part of this Project. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? LS. The 2000 MND identified maintenance of public facilities as a less than significant impact for future development of Area F. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards, so that long-term maintenance is not anticipated to result in any new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed in previous environmental documents. The Project developer will be required to pay Public Facilities Fees to the City of Dublin to assist in constructing new and upgraded public infrastructure to support the proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.4/O (demand for utility extensions) and 3.4/S (consumption of non-renewable natural resources) as significant and unavoidable impacts when approving the Eastern Dublin project. e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 "f" and "g," below. 14. Recreation ~` Environmental Setting The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest City of Dublin community park to the project area is Emerald Glen Park, located on the City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~. southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project site. Emerald Glen Park provides a wide range of recreation and open space amenities for Dublin residents. The City of Dublin also maintains a large number of other park and recreational facilities within the community and offers an extensive recreation program to residents. The Fallon Sports Park is currently under construction east of the Project site. When completed, this facility will contain 60 acres of various sports fields and other recreational facilities. The City of Dublin operates a 2.4-acre Neighborhood Square within the Sorrento West development immediately west of the Project site, which is the closest Neighborhood Park or Square to the Sorrento East site. A Neighborhood Square is a smaller parkin more urban areas of the community where adequate space may not be available for a normal park. The Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan identify a 5.6-acre (gross) Neighborhood Park in the approximate center of the Project site. The EDSP also identifies a future Community Park/Sports Park the northwest corner of Fallon Road and Dublin Boulevard, just east of the Project site. This is the Fallon Sports Grounds with Phase 1 development scheduled for Spring, 2010. This facility will contain in excess of 60 acres of land at full buildout. These parks will be constructed from a combination of City public facilities impact fees and developer dedications of land at the time development on adjacent properties occur. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which . maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use of nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population on the site. The impacts of development were addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as Impacts 3.4/K, L, M and N., the Project applicants are required to comply with related Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, including payment of public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase and/or improve parks throughout the community that could be used by Project residents. No additional impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. No new or more severe impacts with regard to use of recreation facilities would result than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. See item "a." Proposed development on the Sorrento East site does provide for a future 5.6-acre (gross) Neighborhood Park and will be subject to City of Dublin Page 65 ,u Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures. There are no new or more severe significant impacts related to provision of recreational facilities than have been previously analyzed. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting Arterial roadways serving the Project site include Central Parkway that forms the southern boundary of the Project site and Gleason Drive that forms the northern boundary. Both Central Parkway and Gleason Drive connect with north-south arterial roads Tassajara Road to the west and Fallon Road to the east. Both Tassajara Road and Fallon Road intersect with the I-580 freeway, to the south. The I-680 freeway provides north-south regional transportation west of the Project site. Public transit service to Dublin and surrounding Tri-Valley cities is provided by WHEELS bus service, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA). The Dublin Pleasanton BART station is located west of the Project site. The West Dublin BART station is under construction west of the I-680 freeway. Pedestrian access in the Project area is provided by sidewalks located within public or private rights-of-way of nearby streets. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including the following impacts and mitigation measures related to transportation and circulation. • Mitigation Measures 3.3/ 1.0 and 3.3/4.0 were adopted which reduced impacts on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a level of insignificance (Impact 3.3/A and D). • Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580 / 680 interchange (Impacts 3.3/B, C and E). Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts remained on I-580 freeway segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580 (Impact 3.3/B and E). Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway Boulevard /Dublin Boulevard intersections and along El Charro Road to a level of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 .,. interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional improvements through the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program and the Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program (Impacts 3.6/F, H, J and L). • Mitigation Measures 3:3/ 13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M and N). The identified improvements reduced Tassajara Road impacts to less than significant but Dublin Boulevard impacts remained significant and unavoidable due to road widening limitations. • Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 15.0, 15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 generally require coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings (Impact 33/O and P). 2000 MND. The 2000 MND contains Mitigation Measure 7 that includes installation of a number of transportation and circulation improvements at Iron Horse Parkway/Dublin Blvd., Dougherty Rd. /Dublin Blvd., Hacienda Dr. /The Boulevard, Tassajara Rd / I- 580WB ramps, Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB ramps, Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps, Santa Rira Rd. / I-580 EB ramps, Tassajara Rd. /Dublin Blvd, and Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB ramps . Mitigation Measure 8 requires the developers of projects within Area F to participate in widening Tassajara Road between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard from six to eight lanes. All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR and 2000 MND shall apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? LS. The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads and streets. Based on the following trip generation table (Table 8), the proposed Project would add a total of 5,140 daily trips, with 414 trips occurring in the a.m. peak and 511 trips occurring in the p.m. peak periods at project buildout. City of Dublin Page 67 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 Table 8. Project Trip Generation, Approved v. Proposed Stage 1 Development Plans Land Use (ITE Code) No. units Average Trip Rate Number of Trips AM PM Dail AM PM Dail A roved Plan Sin le Famil (210) 75 0.83 1.08 10.64 .62 81 798 Low-rise condo/townhouse (231) 619 0.67 0.78 5.08 415 483 3141 Total 694 477 564 3939 Proposed Project Sin le Famil (210) 513 0.72 0.89 9.12 369 458 4680 Low-rise condo/townhouse (231) 68 0.67 0.78 6.76 46 53 460 Total 581 414 511 5140 Difference -113 -63 -53 +1200 Source: City of Dublin, 2009 The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads; however the number of a.m.. peak trips would be an estimated 63 less than previously analyzed in other CEQA documents and the number of p.m. peak trips would be 53 fewer that previously analyzed. Although the overall number of daily trips is expected to increase by approximately 1,200, the number of a.m. and p.m. peak trips, which is when the most traffic congestion occurs, is anticipated to decrease. Thus, the effects of Project-related trips would be less significant compared to the currently approved Sorrento East Project. Traffic and circulation impacts of constructing residences and similar uses on the Project site was analyzed in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR determined that Impact 3.3/B (I-580 Freeway, I-680- Hacienda) and Impact 3.3 C (I-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway) could not be mitigated to an insignificant level and would remain significant and unavoidable. Similarly, Impacts 3.3 / E, (cumulative freeway impacts) and 3.3 / I (Santa Rita Road / I-580 Freeway eastbound ramps) and Impact 3.3 / M (cumulative impacts on Dublin Boulevard) were found to be significant and unavoidable. These significant and unavoidable impacts would also result with implementation of this Project. The Project developer will be required to pay Eastern Dublin Transportation Improvement Fees to pay the development's fair share of constructing local and regional transportation improvements. No new or more severe impacts with respect to increases in local or regional traffic are anticipated with this Project that have not been previously analyzed. City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~+3Z ~ ~v b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? LS. The proposed Project would not increase p.m. peak hour trips or more as compared with the currently approved Project. Thus there would be no significant impact on either CMP routes or MTS Routes of Regional Significance. c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residential development. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? NI. Approval of the proposed Project and future development would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The EDSP and the Dublin Municipal Code contain design standards intended to assure that access to and from a development area, and circulation within the area, will be safe and efficient. Since Project facilities will be required to be constructed to these design standards, no significant impacts with regard to creating design hazards or unsafe conditions are anticipated. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would not include any barriers or impedances to local or city- wide emergency evacuation routes as required by the City of Dublin Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan so no impact would result regarding this topic. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The amount of parking proposed on the Project site would meet or exceed the City of Dublin's on-site parking requirement; therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to this topic. g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project would include construction of sidewalks on adjacent street frontages to facilitate pedestrian access. Bicyclists could use adjacent roads to access parks, the BART station and shopping areas near the site, so that no impacts to this topic would result. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting Watewater service. The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatment, }~ and disposal issues for the Project area. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) was identified as the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project area with disposal provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and DSRSD. LAVWMA operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin grade and into East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 X33 ~ ,-~ ~.. ..F into San Francisco Bay. Wastewater collection system. DSRSD owns and maintains a system of underground sewer mains throughout its service area, including Dublin. A 30-inch diameter sewer line currently exists within Dublin Boulevard just south of the Project site. Wastewater treatment. Wastewater is collected as described above and conveyed to the District's Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP) located south of Stoneridge Drive in Pleasanton. The WWTP also treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton. DSRSD recently completed the first stage of its planned expansion to serve additional growth in its service area. This expansion added 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to the treatment plant for a total of 17.0 mgd ADWF. Recent flows into the WWTP as of June, 2008, was approximately 10.7 mgd (Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/08). Wastewater disposal. Disposal of treated wastewater generated by the proposed Project is the responsibility of LAVWMA (Livermore-Amador Valley Waste Management Authority). This joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and the DSRSD. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by the City of Livermore and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in Pleasanton and then via a 16-mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro. The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent for ultimate discharge to San Francisco Bay. Water service. Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5, Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This Initial Study analyzes the Project's impacts when evaluated against earlier analyses, including the 2000 MND. Water demand and supply. The City of Dublin is supplied by water provided by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which is discussed below. DSRSD was formed in 1953, formerly known as the Valley Community Services District. Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 from various turnouts in the Dublin area. Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and other customers within the District's service area. The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non- potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for approved customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable water service area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 dual water systems. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ord. No. 980) has also been adopted by DSRSD to minimize use of irrigation water. DSRSD and Zone 7 are responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to meet the anticipated growth in demand. DSRSD plans to use a combination of potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources. The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. Zone 7 relies on a combination of supplies to meet retail water needs. Existing water sources include: State Water Project (SWP) Supplies: In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately 70 to 80 percent of its water supply from water conveyed through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by the State Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year contract with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive water from the State Water Project (SWP). The entitlement under this contract is 80,619 acre-feet annually. SWP water is delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather River Watershed via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This water is then transported to Zone 7 through the California Aqueduct to the South Bay Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle. Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7 treatment plants: the Patterson Pass Treatment Plant and the Del Valle Water Treatment Plant. Zone 7 reached its full entitlement of 46,000 acre-feet per year in 1997. To meet anticipated demand, Zone 7 has acquired additional entitlements from other water agencies equal to 34,619 acre-feet annually. With regard to all of these SWP entitlements, actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic conditions, requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and environmental /regulatory requirements. Historically, for planning purposes Zone 7 anticipated a long-term annual average delivery of 75.6% of its entitlement. Recently, however, SWP water deliveries have been restricted by ashort-term federal court order restricting Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an endangered species, and additional species-related restrictions on the State Water Project's ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible. Zone 7 now anticipates a long-term annual average delivery to be approximately 66% of its entitlements. moron-Bethany Irrigation District: Since 1994, Zone 7 has been receiving water via ashort-term water transfer from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Zone 7 has made arrangements with this District to make this along-term (15) year arrangement. The agreement calls for delivery of 2,000 acre- feet per year. As this water supply is delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct via the Delta, it could potentially be impacted by court and regulatory restrictions on Delta pumping. Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part of the SWP. However, Zone 7 has rights to 50 percent of the runoff from the City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 lake's watershed after accounting for prior tights. Zone 7 staff estimates that approximately 7,400 to 11,450 acre-feet is available, but could change in the future. _~ Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged by rainwater falling in the watershed area. It is estimated that current natural sustainable yield is 13.400 acre-feet of water per year. DSRSD doe not have wells. Instead, the District has a groundwater pumping quota of 645 acre-feet that is pumped by Zone 7 on behalf of DSRSD. Although the restrictions on SWP deliveries from the Delta have created significant uncertainties about future water supplies, DSRSD and Zone 7 indicate that Zone 7 has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand through 2015. In the meantime, as a substantial portion of the State's water supplies are derived from the Delta, various state and federal efforts are underway to ensure that water deliveries from the Delta are maintained while at the same time protecting species that rely on the Delta. These efforts include near-term (or interim) projects, such as the Franks Tract Project, which would install a physical barrier in the Delta that would serve to reduce the impact of pumping on Delta Smelt, and long-term projects, such as the construction of dual- orisolated-conveyance system. Such adual- orisolated-conveyance system would involve the construction of a canal between an intake at the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta and the SWP pumps at the southern end of the Delta, which would allow SWP water to be conveyed separately from the Delta. Ultimately, if future water supplies prove insufficient to meet demand, Zone 7 and DSRSD are exploring a number of alternatives to either reduce demand or increase supply sufficiently to meet projected demand through buildout of their constituent agencies' general plans. These alternatives include: Zone 7 acquiring additional SWP entitlements from other water agencies. Zone 7 altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have adequate supplies available to meet 100% of customer demand through conditions selected by Zone 7 staff. Permanent conservation, such as replacing existing potable-water landscape irrigation systems with recycled water systems and retrofitting existing structures with water conserving fixtures. Offsetting existing demand would free up water supplies for future demand. - Both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the event of a drought. Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge-connection and other fees on new development within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water City of Dublin Page 72 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~~(/~ ~J I system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission and on- going system water maintenance and improvements. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5 / T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area through provision of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/ 1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 / C noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate sewer demand from the Specific Plan project only. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity was a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency to provide adequate disposal capacity. Impact 3.5 / E identified lack of future wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 8.0, which requires City of Dublin Page 73 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~3~ ~ ~ ~ 1 that wastewater treatment and disposal be made available to meet anticipated development in Eastern Dublin. 2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed water and wastewater issues, and solid waste disposal for Area F. No additional impacts or mitigation measures with respect to these topics or utilities or service systems were included in the 2000 MND. All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB ? LS. The Project site is located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicant intends to request wastewater service from the District in order to serve the proposed Project. Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to this Project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These Mitigation Measures include 3.5 / 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. Since the Project would not increase the amount of development intensity on the site greater than currently designated in the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (there would actually be a reduction in the amount of development), no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with regard to exceedances of Regional Water Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? In terms of wastewater facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.5 / A, B, C, D, E and G associated with the planned development of the largely undeveloped Eastern Dublin area and wastewater systems. Impact 3.5/A cited indirect impacts resulting from lack of a wastewater service provider to the Eastern Dublin area. Impact 3.5/B noted lack of a wastewater collection system in the Eastern Dublin area, Impact 3.5/C found an impact with extension of a sewer trunk with capacity to serve future developments in Eastern Dublin. Impacts 3.5 / D and E noted lack of wastewater treatment capacity to serve proposed development in Eastern Dublin. Impact G identified a lack of current wastewater disposal capacity. Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 1.0 through 9.0 and 10.0 through 14.0 were included to reduce wastewater treatment impacts to an insignificant level by requiring extension of a public water system to the Eastern Dublin area, requiring wastewater collection master plans for new development projects, requiring new development projects to be connected to a public sewer system and promoting use of recycled water for irrigation. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the Project site and the remainder of Eastern Dublin has been annexed to DSRSD, so a public wastewater system is available in the area. City of Dublin Page 74 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 -~ 3 $ ~ 4~ 4~; t For Sorrento East Project, the developer would construct local sewer laterals and related facilities to DSRSD specifications in order to connect to the regional DSRSD sewer system. This is identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. With respect to wastewater treatment, Eastern Dublin EIR noted Impacts 3.5/G and I regarding lack of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. Eastern Dublin Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 11.0 through 14.0 and 3.5 / 17.0 to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require expansion of the treated wastewater export pipeline from Eastern Dublin, promote reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation, require development projects to receive awill-serve letter from DSRSD, and require engineering redundancy to minimize the risk of pump station failure. These measures have been implemented and a larger export pipeline was completed in 2005 under the auspices of the Livermore Amador Valley Wastewater Treatment Authority (LAVWTA). DSRSD has commenced construction of a recycled water system in the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed Project will be required to connect to this system when a recycled pipeline is constructed near the Project site. Based on Project compliance with the above Eastern Dublin mitigation measures, the Project developer will be required to prepare and implement a wastewater master plan, pay necessary fees and construct local, Project-specific wastewater facilities to DSRSD standards and specifications. In terms of a water facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5 / R that cited a need for additional water treatment plant capacity and Impact S, lack of a water distribution system. Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0 and 33.0 reduced this impact to a level of insignificance by requiring construction of new water treatment facilities to serve planned development in the Eastern Dublin area, including upgrades to the Del Valle Water Treatment Plan, installation of ozone facilities, installation of a water clarifier at the Patterson Pass water treatment plans by Zone 7 and construction of new water chlorination and fluoridation stations at Zone 7 water turnouts. Distribution mitigation measures require water system planning, system improvements designed and built to DSRSD standards and for development to obtain will-serve letters from DSRSD. The Project developer will be required to pay water fees to DSRSD to assist in funding these and other water facility upgrades. With adherence to these measures, no new or more severe impacts with respect to wastewater or water facilities not previously analyzed are antiapated. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. See item 8 "e" in the Hydrology and Water Quality section. d) Are sufficient water supplies available?. ? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impacts 3.5 / Q and T with respect to water supply. Impact Q cited an increase in City of Dublin Page 75 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~~~ ~~ ~ " water demand based on buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Impact T noted inducement of substantial growth and population concentration in Eastern Dublin with development of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR included Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 31.0 to assist in reducing the water demand impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require water conservation and recycling conditions on development and improvements to the Zone 7 system. However, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified that Impact IM 3.5/T, inducement of substantial population growth in Eastern Dublin as a result of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, was a significant and unavoidable impact and could not be fully mitigated. This impact was included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations The proposed Project will be required to meet all water system mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce water supply impacts to an insignificant level; however, the inducement a substantial population increase based on an increase in the regional water supply will remain significant and unavoidable. No new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified will result from the Project. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?. See responses to "a" and "b,"above. f) Solid waste disposal? NI. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impacts 3.4 / O and P regarding increased waste production and increased demand for waste disposal facilities.) Mitigation Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0 call for solid waste planning and diversion. No new or more severe significant impacts would result with regard to this topic that have not been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No additional analysis is required. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed Project be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective habitats, to reduction of the range or number of endangered plant or City of Dublin Page 76 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 animal species or the elimination of examples of major period of California history or prehistory in the Eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The proposed Project would cause no new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in previous environmental reviews. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? No. ("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 in the Eastern Dublin EIR with regard to cumulative air quality, transportation and other issues for the overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Sorrento East Project is a component. The proposed Project would not result in additional or more severe cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No, no such impacts have been identified in this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 77 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~.} ~ i ~~~ Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Project Manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Michael Porto, Planning Consultant Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Dublin San Ramon Services District Stan Kolodzie Applicant Representatives Connie Goldade, MacKay &Somps Lisa Vilhauer, MacKay &Somps References City of Dublin Comprehensive Mana,~ement Plan, undated Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 Environmental Site Assessment Update, Sorrento Sub Area 2, ENGEO, Inc, June 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update City of Dublin Page 78 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 u~z~~~ ~ Attachment 1- Biological Resource Letter City of Dublin Page 79 Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010 PA 08-002 ~~ ~~~- H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ECOLOGICAL CO;VSUI TA:VTS 22 December 2008 Jim Kern Regent Properties 554 Kingsbridge Court San Ramon, CA 94583 RE: Sorrento East Project Biological Survey Update Report (HTH #2998-01) Dear Mr. Kern: Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has completed a biological resource assessment of the approximately 70-acre Sorrento East Project (hereafter "Project") site located north of Central Parkway, east of Lockhart Street, south of Gleason Drive, and west of Grafton Street in Dublin, California. The purpose of these services is to provide the City of Dublin with an update of the biological resources on the Sorrento East Project site since the original California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance study in 1999. The Project site was originally a portion of the Dublin Ranch Project for which we conducted the original biological resource assessment and subsequent mitigation compliance activities. Based on this experience we conducted a background review of all special-status species that may occur on the Project site and of all biological mitigation compliance or regulatory compliance measures required for the Sorrento East Project. Background Review of Biological Resources Regulatory Permits. Biological resources on the Dublin Ranch Project site are subject to mitigation or regulatory compliance measures required by the 1992 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EDSPEIR), the original U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2002 Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, the 2005 Amended USFWS Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, and the 2004 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement. A significant number of the compliance measures from the Biological Opinions and the CDFG Agreement were completed during infrastructure construction by Dublin Ranch. Special-status Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site. The potential for special-status species to occur the Project has changed since 1999 with respect to habitat `'~ availability. Habitat has been removed from the site during construction of infrastructure throughout the Dublin Ranch Project areas and site grading on the Sorrento East Project site. There are no habitats for new, special-status species that were not present at the time of the 1999 CEQA compliance study. In addition, numerous, typically monthly, pre- construction surveys for special-status wildlife species have been conducted on or in areas adjacent to the Project site since 2003 for the Dublin Ranch Project. These surveys 983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3210 ~«1 Uy~~4~f J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 2 of 9 have detected both California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) in the vicinity of the Sorrento East Project, and it is possible that either of these species may occur on the Project site. Other than these two species and occasional foraging and/or migratory birds, no special-status species have been observed on or adjacent to the Project site during any of these surveys. Also, since the 1999 study was conducted there has been a change in regulatory status of the California tiger salamander (Ambystorna californiense), and new information has become available on the occurrence of California red-legged frogs in the Project area. California Tiger Salamander. When the CEQA compliance study was conducted in 1999, the California tiger salamander was a Candidate species for protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and was subsequently considered under CEQA compliance by the CDFG during permitting. This species was formally listed as federally threatened under the FESA in 2004, and critical habitat was designated in 2005. The Project site is not located within designated critical habitat for the California tiger salamander. The CDFG required mitigation for impacts to California tiger salamanders by the Dublin Ranch Project that included salvaging California tiger salamanders from the Project area prior to construction and relocating them to conservation areas. The mitigation for California tiger salamanders was conducted during infrastructure construction over the entire Dublin Ranch Project area. California tiger salamanders were translocated from the Dublin Ranch Project area, inclusive of the Sorrento East Project site, in 2003. Nighttime surveys were conducted and all burrows on the site (over 650) were excavated. California tiger salamanders found during burrow excavation were translocated to the Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Conservation Area. These measures removed all individuals from the Project site and eliminated all suitable habitat from the Project site. The California tiger salamander was the main subject of the 2005 amendment to the USFWS Biological Opinion. However, since attempts to remove all California tiger salamanders from the site have been undertaken, the only measures related to the species that are applicable to the Sorrento East Project pertain to the potential discovery of California tiger salamanders during construction. California Red-le~~ed Frog, The California red-legged frog was formally listed as federally threatened under the FESA in 1996, and the status of the California red-legged frog has not changed since the 1999 CEQA compliance study. The USFWS published the current final critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog on 13 April 2006. The Project site is not located within the designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog. Critical habitat for California red-legged frogs is under review and was purposed on 16 September 2008. The project is not located within the newly proposed critical habitat. New information about the distribution of California red- legged frogs in the Project vicinity has become available since the 1999 CEQA compliance documentation, and the California red-legged frog is subject to the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS for the Dublin Ranch Project area. H. T. HARVEY& ASSOCIATES i.1 J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 3 of 9 ~~~ ~~~ In 1999, California red-legged frogs were known from a pond along Fallon Road near the current location of Central Parkway. A single frog was found in a stock pond west of Sorrento East and a single dead frog was found in a stock pond east of Sorrento East. Consultation with the USFWS concerning this listed species resulted in the 2002 Biological Opinion. Mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frogs included salvaging individuals from impact areas prior to construction and relocating them to conservation areas. Between 1999 and 2003, the California red-legged frog population on the Dublin Ranch site increased dramatically. In 2003 and 2004, during infrastructure construction at Dublin Ranch, almost 850 frogs and over 2700 tadpoles were relocated to conservation areas. All aquatic habitat was removed at that time; however, in the intervening period, on-site drainages have been constructed along portions of Grafton Street and Lockhart Street, and small areas of ponding have occurred on construction sites throughout the Dublin Ranch Project Area, particularly during winter rains. No frogs were observed on the Dublin Ranch Project site during pre-construction surveys that took place between 2004, when translocations were completed, and January 2008. In January 2008, a single California red-legged frog was observed on the Dublin Ranch site in the drainage ditch at the corner of Central Parkway and Fallon Road, approximately 0.3 mi from the Sorrento East Project site. In November of 2008, 5 red- legged frogs were relocated from a small, deep pool at the corner of Central Parkway and Lockhart Street, approximately 0.1 mi from the Sorrento East Project site. Given the close proximity of these recent occurrences of California red-legged frogs to the Sorrento East Project area, there is a possibility that dispersing individual California red-legged frogs may occur on the Project site, especially during the rainy season and in any area of ponded water. San Joaquin Kit Fox. The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1967 and by the State of California in 1971, and its status has not changed since the 1999 CEQA compliance study. No critical habitat has been designated for this species. There are no new records of the San Joaquin kit fox within the Dublin Ranch Project area or in the vicinity of Dublin since the 1999 CEQA compliance study. As of 1999, numerous surveys for San Joaquin kit foxes had been conducted in the Dublin Ranch Project area, and no evidence of kit foxes was detected during any of the surveys. However, the Dublin Ranch site contained ostensibly suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox, and the USFWS maintained that kit foxes from the closest populations approximately 9 miles to the east could range through this suitable habitat and potentially occur within the Dublin Ranch Project site. Therefore, the 2002 USFWS Biological Opinion included conservation measures for the San Joaquin kit fox which pertain to the Sorrento East Project site. In addition, the EDSPEIR required surveys for kit fox with which the Sorrento East Project must also comply. No San Joaquin kit foxes or evidence of kit foxes has been observed on the Dublin Ranch Project site during numerous pre-construction surveys that took place between the 1999 CEQA compliance study and December 2008. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES i,~ +-~ y l.a ~~! ~ J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 4 of 9 American Badger. The American badger (Taxidea ttaus) is a California Species of Special Concern. American badgers are known to occur in the Dublin area; the closest record to the Sorrento East Project site is from the Northern Drainage Conservation Area, approximately 1 mi north of the Project site. Badgers have extremely large home ranges, and individuals could potentially disperse or forage through the grassland habitat on the Sorrento East Project site. However, due to past measures that eliminated all burrows from the Dublin Ranch Project area, no suitable denning habitat for this species is present on the Project site. Nevertheless, the EDSPEIR requires pre-construction surveys for this species. Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Burrowing owls and their nests are also protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and state Fish and Game Code. Burrowing owls occur frequently throughout the East Dublin Specific Plan area, and owls have been observed during pre-construction surveys of Project sites in the immediate vicinity of the Sorrento East Project area. Due to past measures that eliminated all burrows from the Dublin Ranch Project area, only marginal, disturbed foraging or dispersal habitat is present on the Project site. Nevertheless, the EDSPEIR requires pre-construction surveys. The Dublin Ranch Project reached agreement with the CDFG on a process to protect and passively remove non- nesting burrowing owls; this process pertains to the Sorrento East Project area as well as the remainder of Dublin Ranch. Special-status Birds. The EDSPEIR includes assessment of potential impacts on and mitigation measures for special-status bird species. Aside from burrowing owls, which are covered separately in this update, the EDSPEIR requires pre-construction surveys for tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) and "other species of special concern". The CDFG list of California Species of Special Concern has changed at least twice since that document and the 1999 site assessment were completed. Recently the CDFG revised its list of Bird Species of Special Concern. There is no habitat in the Project area for any newly listed bird Species of Special Concern except the loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); however, some Species of Concern considered by the EDSPEIR are still on the list and some have been removed. Some considered to potentially occur in the East Dublin Specific Plan Area will not occur in the Sorrento East site due to a lack of suitable habitat. Table 1 lists the species considered in the EDSPEIR, their current status, and their potential for occurrence on the Sorrento East Project site. Table 1. Special-status Species from the EDSPEIR and new additions, their status, and potential to occur on Sorrento East site. S ecies Status in EDSPEIR Current status Potential to occur on Sorrento East site Bald ea le Haliaeetus /eucoce ha/us SE, FE, BEPA SE, BEPA None Golden ea le A ui/a ch saetos SSC, BEPA, SP, BEPA Fora er Northern harrier Circus c aneus SSC SSC Fora er Pere rine falcon Falco ere rinus anatum FE, SE SE, BEPA None Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus SSC None Fora er Shar -shinned hawk Acci iter striatus SSC None None H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ;,~ J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 5 of 9 S ecies Status in EDSPEIR Current status Potential to occur on Sorrento East site Coo er's hawk Acci iter coo erii SSC None None White-tailed kite (E/anus leucurus * None SP Fora er Burrowin owl Athene cunicu/aria SSC SSC Fora er or Westin Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC SSC None Loggerhead shrike (Lanius /udovicianus None SSC Fora er Tricolored blackbird A e/aius tricolor SSC SSC None SE=state endangered, FE=federally endangered, BEPA=Bald Eagle Protection Act, SSC=Species of Special Concern. * Discussed but not listed in the EDSPEIR. Because most of the nesting habitat and some of the foraging habitat on the Project site has been removed, special-status species that may occur on the Sorrento East site are: golden eagle, northern harrier, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike. Only the burrowing owl may nest on the site, and special measures are provided (see Updated Compliance Measures and Recommendations below) for burrowing owls. In addition, all native, migratory birds in the United States are also protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and in California by the state Fish and Game Code; raptors (birds of prey) have additional protections under the California Fish and Game Code; and eagles are also protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Biological Resources Survey H. T. Harvey & Associates' wildlife ecologist Robin Carle, M.S., conducted a survey of the Sorrento East Project site on 15 December 2008 to update the previous surveys, including numerous surveys sine 1999 conducted for the purpose of compliance with Dublin Ranch Project approvals. Site Overview. The Project site currently consists of ruderal grassland habitat bisected by a recently constructed paved road that parallels Gleason Drive and connects to Lockhart Street. Approximately 30-40% of the site has been graded flat and hydroseeded, with the remainder of the site graded for roads and housing pads and vegetated by nonnative annual grasses and weeds. The parcels of land immediately surrounding the Project site are a part of the larger Dublin Ranch Project such that single- family residential development in various stages of construction is present north, west, and south of the Project site. Open space consisting primarily of graded annual grassland habitat occurs east of the Project where future development of the Fallon Sports Park Complex is to occur. Survey Results. There is no non-disturbed habitat on the site. The habitat for special- status wildlife species that was formerly present is either very poor due to disturbance associated with extensive grading on the Project site or absent due to past measures that eliminated suitable habitat for these species. The majority of the special-status species identified in the background review as potentially occurring in the Project vicinity are considered to be absent from the Project site due to these degraded site conditions. H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ;~ J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 6 of 9 ~~~~~~~i California tiger salamander. There are no burrows of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders. Thus, California tiger salamanders continue to be absent from the Project site as no suitable habitat is present to support this species. Due to the history of permit compliance on the Dublin Ranch site (including excavation of all burrows and relocation of tiger salamanders) and the lack of available habitat, California tiger salamanders are not expected to be present on the Sorrento East Project site. California red-legged frog. No California red-legged frogs were observed during this survey. However, the recent records from nearby on the Dublin Ranch Project site indicate that California red-legged frogs may occur on the Sorrento East Project site. Habitat on the Project site consists of heavily graded upland grassland areas, with no aquatic habitat such as drainages, ponds, streams, or wetlands to provide suitable breeding habitat for California red-legged frogs. However, standing water is likely to accumulate in small depressions located throughout the site between the graded housing pads where water collects after heavy rains. While there are no areas on the site where these temporary pools can accumulate enough depth to support successful breeding by California red-legged frogs, these pools may amact dispersing individuals and provide opportunities for foraging or even unsuccessful breeding attempts. San Joaquin Kit Fox. All areas within the project limits and adjacent areas, as access allowed, were walked to detect the presence of kit foxes by searching for dens and related sign. No burrows of California ground squirrels, or other mammal species, were detected on the site during the survey. Therefore, no suitable breeding, denning, or foraging habitat for this species is present on the Project site. American Badger. All areas within the project limits and adjacent areas, as access allowed, were walked to detect the presence of badgers by searching for dens and related sign. No burrows of any mammal species were detected on the site during the survey. Therefore, no suitable breeding, denning, or foraging habitat for this species is present on the Project site. Burrowing Owl. The Sorrento East Project site and surrounding areas within 250 ft were surveyed for burrowing owls, as access allowed, and all potential burrows on the site were examined for evidence of owl occupation such as the presence of feathers, whitewash, or pellets. Although no small mammal burrows were found, a single owl was detected approximately 300 ft from the southwest comer of the site at the opening to a deep crack on the side of one of the housing pads. No burrows or other cracks suitable for owl occupation were observed on the site. Special-status Birds. The Sorrento East Project site and surrounding areas within 250 ft were surveyed for nesting raptors or special-status birds either included in the overarching EDSPEIR or with current status, as access allowed, including the golden eagle, northern harrier, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike. Special-status birds observed during this survey include the burrowing owl H. T. HARVEY& ASSOCIATES ;~ J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 7 of 9 previously discussed and a single foraging northern harrier. No wetlands, shrubs, trees, cavities, or structures that would support nesting raptors or special-status bird species are present on or within 250 ft of the site, and no active or inactive nests were found within the project impact area or within 250 ft of the project site. Special-status bird species may forage in the open habitat on the site, but no suitable breeding habitat is present so the project will not impact any special-status birds. While these special-status bird species are commonly found in the Dublin Ranch Project area and may forage on the Sorrento East Project site, no suitable breeding habitat is present in the disturbed, heavily graded annual grassland habitat that comprises the Project area. Thus, the Project is not expected to impact these species. Migratory birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), were also present on the Project site and may nest in the grassland habitat on the site during the breeding season (1 February - 31 August). Updated Compliance Measures and Recommendations No new or additional measures or recommendations (beyond those in the EDSPEIR) are warranted for the California tiger salamander, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, or special-status birds with the exception of burrowing owls. However, the EDSPEIR requires apre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification to verify absence of these species, all Species of Special Concern, and nesting raptors. California Red-legged Frog. Because of the recent records of California red-legged frogs in close proximity to the Project site, we recommend that pre-construction surveys for California red-legged frogs as required by the Biological Opinion be conducted prior to the start of construction. Should there be a break in construction of more than 14 days during the rainy season, we recommend that this survey be repeated to ensure that no dispersing individual California red-legged frogs are present on the site. This survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS to capture and relocate California red-legged frogs under the 2002 and 2005 Biological Opinions for Dublin Ranch. If a California red-legged frog or other listed species is found on the site, the Biological Opinion establishes procedures to be followed (e.g., stopping work in the area and having aUSFWS-approved biologist relocate the frog to a Dublin Ranch conservation area). Burrowing Owl. Because burrowing owls are present in the vicinity of the Sorrento East Project site and because an owl was observed on the Project site during the biological resources assessment survey, we recommend pre-construction surveys and exclusion of burrowing owls. It is our understanding that an informal mitigation agreement exists between the Dublin Ranch Project site and the CDFG that allows the exclusion of burrowing owls prior to disturbance activities outside of the nesting season. This agreement should extend to the Sorrento East Project site, and no additional compensatory mitigation would be required prior to the exclusion of owls. We recommend that the pre-construction exclusion of owls from the Project site take place prior to the start of the breeding season (i.e., prior to 1 February or after 31 August). If H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES i~J J. Kern 22 December 2008 Page 8 of 9 ~5~~ ~~ ~ burrowing owls are not excluded prior to 1 February, the CDFG is unlikely to allow the exclusion of an established owl during the breeding season, and the EDSPEIR requires a buffer of at least 300 ft around nesting sites of burrowing owls during the breeding season. Thus, surveys for and exclusion of burrowing owls should take place prior to the breeding season and/or to initiation of disturbance activities to avoid delays in construction schedules. We recommend surveys to exclude owls from burrows and crevices throughout the Project site followed by backfilling the "burrows" once owls have been excluded. However, should a burrowing owl occur on the Project site during the nesting season, the CDFG should be consulted to determine if exclusion is possible prior to nest establishment; otherwise, construction-free buffers of 300 ft around active burrows will need to be established. Currently Applicable Regulatory Permit Measures. Biological resources on the Dublin Ranch Project site are subject to mitigation or regulatory compliance measures required by the 1992 EDSPEIR, the original 2002 Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, the 2005 Amended Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, and the 2004 CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement. While habitat has been removed for most species, and many measures were completed during Dublin Ranch infrastructure construction, there are measures that still apply to the Sorrento East Project. Please refer to each of the original documents for all requirements. The following measures deserve particular note: o The EDSPEIR requires apre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification to verify presence of San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors, California red- legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, western pond turtles (no habitat), tricolored blackbirds (no nesting habitat) and other Species of Special Concern. The Biological Opinion requires surveys for California red-legged frogs prior to construction. A survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS to capture and relocate California red-legged frogs under the 2002 and 2005 Biological Opinions for Dublin Ranch. If a California tiger salamander or California red-legged frog is found on the site, an approved biologist must be the only one handling or relocating the animal. o The Biological Opinion for the Dublin Ranch Project area requires an employee training program for construction workers conducted by a knowledgeable biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities. The training program should cover the biology and identification of the San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander as well as the measures required by project permits to avoid or minimize impacts to these species. Because it is still possible for California red-legged frogs in particular (and perhaps California tiger salamander) to occur on the site, construction workers should know how to identify these listed species and how to respond to the detection of an individual of a protected species. o The 2004 CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement specifies that equipment shall not be operated in wetted areas (including but not limited to ponded, flowing, or wetland areas). If construction activities are to occur in areas of the Project site with ponded H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Z,~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ J. Kem . 22 December 2008 Page 9 of 9 water, this water may need to be removed using a pump and the procedure monitored by a qualified and approved biologist to ensure that no California red-legged frogs, eggs, or larvae are harmed. Please contact me at (408} 458-3225 or j~~ui<~..±_~~~~~~-I~_u•v~ ~~L.i:C;lr>~,;.~•,.;;~; if you have any questions about our survey results or this report. Thank you for contacting H. T. Harvey & Associates regarding this survey. We would be •happy to continue to assist you in complying with remaining permit and mitigation measures for this project. Sincerely;' ' JuY'ie Klingmannx M.S. Project ManageF -Wildlife Ecologist H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES iA«1