HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 EDubProp Attach5Vol2Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
East Dublin ProPerties
Stage 1 Development Plan and Annexation
Volume 2: Appendices
SCHNo. 2001052114
Lead Agency
City of Dublin
July 2001
APPENDIX A: INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF DUBLIN
Notice of Preparation
Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us
4~
To: Distribution List (see attached)
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Date: May 25, 2001
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
Planning Department
1 O0 Civic Plaza
Dublin CA 94568
Contaet:'Anne Kinney, AICP, Planning Department, (925) 833 6610
The City of Dublin will be the Lead Agency and hereby invites comments on the proposed scope
and content of the Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency
may need to use the EIR prepared by the Lead Agency when considering follow-on permits or
other approvals for this project.
Project Title: East Dublin Properties (PA 00-025).
Pre jeer Location: UnincorpOrated area of Alameda County, adjacent to City of
Dublin eastern city- limits, immediately north of Interstate 580 and east of Fallen Road.
See attached project location map. The site encompasses approximately 1,120 acres of land.
Project Description: Planned Development Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan and
Annexation/Detachment application to facilitate the annexation of approximately 1,120 acres
of land to the City of Dublin and attachment to and detachment from various service districts.
The Planned Development (PD) Prezone / Stage 1 Development Plan would provide zoning
for various land uses including commercial, industrial and residential development, parks,
schools, open space and other uses. '
The attached Initial Study identifies potential environmental effects anticipated to be discussed in
the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. '~
Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be returned at the earliest possible
time but not later than June 27, 2001. Please send your response to the contact person
identified above.
Signature:
Title:
Telephone:
Area Code (925) · City Manager 833-6650 · City 'Council 833-6650 · Personnel 833-6605 · Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 - Parks & Community Services 833-6645' · Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 · Building Inspection 833-6620 '. Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
DISTRIBUTION LIST
TO:
Office of Planning and Research- Terry Roberts (15 copies)
Dublin San Ramo~,~ Services District (Bruce Webb)
Dublin Unified Sc;:ool District - John Sugiyama
LAVTA
Zone 7, AcFc&wcD _ Diane Gaines
Alameda County Planning Department - Adolph Martinelli
Surplus Property Authority of Alameda County - Pat Cashman
Alameda County Public Works Department
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission
Congestion Management Agency (CMA) - Jean Hart
East Bay Regional Parks District
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
U.S. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Camp Parks) - Lt. Col. Dale Bain
PG&E
Pacific Bell
TCI Cable
U.S. Postal Service - Postmaster
City of Pleasanton Planning Department
City of Livermore Planning Department
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District - Doug Bell
CalTrans - District 4 CEQA Coordinator and Project Development
BART
LAVWMA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch
California Department of Fish and Game - Region 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - State Supervisor
LAFCO - Lou Ann Texteria
Citizens for Balanced Growth
Smart Flashman
Richard Ambrose, City Manager
Captain Thuman, Police Services
Eddie peabody, Jr., Community Development Director
Lee Thompson, Public Works Director
Carole Perry, Finance/Administrative Services Director
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Jim Ferdinand, Dublin Fire Prevention
East Dublin Property Owners
INITIAL STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
East Dublin Properties
City of Dublin
Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, as amended), and assesses the potential
environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described 'below.
The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist, and a brief explanation
· of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is
based on the land use designations, circulation patterns, etc. assigned to the project area
by the City of Dublin's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, this Initial Study
relies upon a Program EIR certified by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General P1an
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report", State Clearinghouse No.
91103064). That EIR, which is referred to in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin
EIR", evaluated the following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing;.
Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm
Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources;
Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations.
Some of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR apply to
the proposed project and, therefore, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are
included in this Initial Study by reference. However, as indicated in the environmental
checklist, conditions related to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Noise, Public Services (schools), Transportation/Circulation,. and Utilities/Service
Systems may have changed enough since the EIR was certified that new potentially
significant environmental impacts may exist for those topics, or a potentially substantial
increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects for those topics may
exist. However, because only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the
Eastern Dublin EIR adequate in light of those changed circumstances, a focused
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be prepared for the proposed
project.
Applicant/Contact Person
East Dublin Property Owners
c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
Phone: (925) 245-3600
FAX: (925) 245-8833
Project Location and Context
The project site is approximately 1,110 acres in area and is located in an unincorporated
area of Alameda County bounded by Interstate 580 (1-580) to the south and Fallon Road
to/he west. Exhibit 1 shows the project location in relation to the general Bay Area. The
area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer to Exhibit 2).
The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan Planning Area
and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also are included
within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit 4). The
project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate
ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7).
The topography of the site 'ranges from relatively flat at the southern portion near the
freeway, to gently rolling hills at the center of the site, to relatively steep slopes, some
exceeding 30% in some places. A series of low knolls trending from northwest to
southeast bisect the southern portion of the property and provide a backdrop to the flatter
portions of the site near the freeway. A few drainages flow in a north to south
orientation, transecting the project area along its length. Exhibit 3 shows the topography
of the project site. A small number of trees exist beyond those planted around existing
homesteads and scattered in the drainages.
The project properties currently are used primarily for dryland farming and cattle grazing
with rural residences, a horse ranch and associated outbuildings scattered throughout the
site. Improvements to the agricultural lands generally consist of paved and unpaved
roads, fences, barns, corrals, wells, water tanks, ponds, single-family homes and various
outbuildings.
In 1994 the City of Dublin adopted a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan which
addressed long-term development of approximately 4,200 acres of land east of the central
portion of Dublin. The entire project site is located in the easternmost portion of that
General Plan Amendment area and a portion of the site (approx. 472 acres) is located
within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project would implement the easternmost
portion of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan. For the portion of the
project area located within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP), the Specific Plan
identifies land uses, circulation patterns, infrastructure requirements, and programs and
policies which. At build-out, this portion of the project's. 472 acres would provide
2
approximately 1,240 dwelling units and almost 1.4million square feet of office,
commercial and industrial floor space at the mid-point densities contemplated by the
EDSP. This represents approximately t0% of the total EDSP residential units and 11%
of the total office, commercial, industrial and institutional floor space (Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, page 16). This portion of the project site also provides 103 acres for
schools, public parks and open space, approximately 11% of the total EDSP acreage
designated for such uses (Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, pp. 24-25). The other 637 acres
of the project site have been designated by the General Plan for residential land uses and
would provide 1,286 dwelling units at mid-point densities for low density and rural
residential/agriculture uses indicated by the General Plan, with 34.5 acres dedicated to
schools, parks and open space.
Project Description
All of the subject property is located within the unincorporated area of Alameda County.
The proposed project consists of: a Stage 1 Development Plan application to the City of
Dublin requesting a pre-zoning of the site in accordance with the City's General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan; annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin and the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD); execution of a Pre-Annexation
Agreement between the City of Dublin and the project proponents/property-owners;.
detachment from the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) upon
annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin; and, post-annexation, probable
cancellation of Williamson Act contracts for several of the properties within the project
area. Although not requiring City action, the project proponents also are requesting
detachment of the project area from the Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District
(LVJUSD) and attachment to the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD). This Initial
Study evaluates all of those actions.
Stage 1 Planned Development (Prezoning)
State law requires property to be prezoned before annexation can take place. Prezoning is
an action to indicate what city zoning will take effect once the annexed property becomes-
part of the city. The City of Dublin uses a Stage 1 Planned Development (PD) under
Chapter 8.32 of its zoning ordinance to prezone property in accordance with the City's
General Plan and, in this case, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations. Under
the City's zoning ordinance a Stage 1 development plan must establish: a plan of
proposed land use by type and density of use; the maximum number of dwelling units and
commercial/office/industrial areas; a master landscape plan; and a preliminary
development phasing plan. Once the site is annexed, project proponents will apply for a
Stage 2 PD for site-specific zoning and development plan approval. City approval of a
Stage 2 development plan must be received to complete the PD zoning process.
Table 1 indicates the land uses and development intensities proposed for the project site.
Proposed land uses, residential densities and development intensities are consistent with
the City's recommended midpoint densities of the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. The project proposes a maximum of 2,526 dwelling units and
approximately 1.4 million square feet of neighborhood commercial, general commercial
and industrial park development. Also included in the plan are approximately 32 acres
for school sites, 41 acres for parks, and a minimum of 77 acres of open space.
Residential densities range from Low (0.9 - 6 du/acre) to Medium High (14-25 dWacre),
although 270 acres of the project area is designated for Rural Residential density which
allows only 1 unit for every one hundred acres.
Exhibit 6 shows the proposed land uses and pre-zoning designations for the project area.
Commercial and industrial uses are located generally along the freeway corridor where
noise would overly impact residential uses and where access is easiest for such uses.
Residential uses are located in the northern two thirds of the project area. Parks and
schools are distributed throughout the project site as indicated by the Specific Plan and
General Plan: two elementary schools, one junior high school, four neighborhood parks,
and a neighborhood square with additional acreage to be dedicated to a large planned
community park just west of the proposed project. The EDSP anticipated that the
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission might adopt an Airport Protection Area
(A_PA) for the Livermore Municipal Airport which would prohibit residential uses within
5000 feet of the airport runways. Some areas of the EDSP designated for residential land
uses and which were anticipated to be within the future A_PA, also are designated in the
EDSP as Future Study Area, requiring additional review and action by the City to
determine the most appropriate land use (see also page 16 of the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan). This designation affects 92.6 acres of the project site.
As part of the proposed project, the project developers would construct all major
roadways and public infrastructure such as water, wastewater, recycled water, and storm
drainage facilities. Major roadways would be constructed to and through the project area
with project proponents utilizing assessment districts, Mello Roos districts or other
appropriate financing mechanisms to help fund construction.
Grading activities would occur within the project area to accommodate planned land uses,
roads and utilities, although the amount of grading will not be established until the Stage
2 Planned Development when detailed site and grading plans are developed. Water,
sewer and recycled water services would be provided to the area by DSRSD in
accordance with plans formulated by DSRSD and the City's General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan. As development in Dublin continues expanding eastward to Fallon
Road and the project site, public utilities will be extended concomitantly. The project
developers would continue the extension of these services throughout the project site as it
is developed.
Water distribution mains are planned to be located in all major streets. Construction of
water storage reservoirs are not anticipated to be part of this project. Sewer service for
the project would be provided through connection to the DSRSD sewer system once it is
extended through Dublin Ranch, located to the west of the project area. Gravity flow
sewer mains would be installed along Central Parkway and Dublin Boulevard.
Temporary pumping stations may be needed in the initial stages of development. When
and where available, DSRSD would provide recycled water for irrigation purposes,
reducing the need for POtable water.
-4
The storm drainage system would consist of underground pipes and culverts throughout
the .site connecting to box culverts and/or open channels that would flow southerly and
westerly along 1-580 to the existing G-3 drainage channel, an Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District facility.
The City of Dublin's inclusionary zoning ordinance requires that 5% of a project's
dwelling units must be affordable to very low, Iow and moderate income households.
Compliance could consist of constructing the required number of inclusionary units or
paying an in-lieu fee to the City. The project proponents will be required to comply with
the ordinance, although the specific method generally would not be determined until the
Stage 2 PD and related subdivision maps are reviewed.
The project applicants indicate that land uses and infrastructure would be phased over a
number of years to ensure that roads and other infrastructure facilities would be available
to support land uses as they are needed. As indicated in the applicants' Stage 1 PD
submittal to the City, preliminary development of the first phases could commence in two
years with project build-out anticipated to be completed over the ensuing five to ten
years.
Proposed Reorganization (annexations and detachments,)
The project site is contiguous with the City of Dublin and all of its 1,120 acres lie within
Dublin's Sphere of Influence and within the Sphere of Influence of the Dublin San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The City's General Plan and the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (which addresses 472 acres of the project area), contemplated the eventual
annexation and development of the project site in accordance with the land' use
designations, programs and policies of each Plan. The annexation of the project site by
Dublin would complete the expansion of the City in this area per its current Sphere of
Influence.
Similarly, the project area is within the expected service area of DSRSD and all of
DSRSD's master plans for the provision and distribution of water, wastewater service,
and recycled water include the annexation of, and service to, the project site. Because the
water, wastewater, and recycled water services are provided to the City of Dublin by
DSRSD, the City and DSRSD have concurred in policy that their boundaries and Spheres
of Influence will be coterminous (except for that portion of DSRSD's service area which
extends to portions of Contra Costa County). Hence, annexation of the area to the City
also requires annexation of the area to DSRSD to provide needed services.
One of the City's General Plan Guiding Policies (3.3 A) is to expand park area to serve
new development. Both the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
contemplate the expansion of park services to the project site and indicated preferred park
locations within the project area. However, the project site currently is within the
boundaries of LARPD: Detachment of the project area fi.om the LARPD service area is a
logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured,
particularly since Dublin has planned for the expansion of its park services. A similar
detachment was carried Out when the property immediately to. the west was annexed to
the City.
The project site is located within the City's General Plan Eastern Extended Planning
Area. A City of Dublin Guiding Policy (4.1 B) promotes cooperation with the Dublin
Unified SchoOl District to ensure provision of school facilities in the Extended Planning
Area, thereby ensuring that all incorporated areas of the City are served by one school
district. The General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan have indicated potential
school sites within the project area which are to be offered for dedication to DUSD.
Dublin Unified School District has considered the project area for service since adoption
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. However,
as above, the project area currently is within the boundaries of the Livermore Valley Joint
Unified School District. Deannexation of the project area from the LVJ-USD service area
is a logical step once annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin is assured,
particularly since DUSD and the City have planned for school service to the project area.
A similar reorganization of school district boundaries occurred when property
immediately to the west was annexed.
A reorganization of school district boundaries, however, does not require a City action or
LAFCO action, but does require approval by the two involved school boards. The project
applicant already has been in contact with the staff's of both school districts and will
make a request for reorganization to the two boards.
Pre-annexation Agreement/Development Agreements
The City requires that the project proponents and property owners enter into pre-
annexation and development agreements with the City. Pre-annexation agreements
encourage project proponents and the City to meet certain mutual obligations while the
area proposed for annexation is proceeding through entitlement processes and ensure that
the proposed project will not be a financial burden to the City. Development agreements
vest development approvals for a specified period of time so that developers of large,
time extensive projects have the ability to construct such projects in a time frame and
under mutual obligations beneficial to the City and the project proponent. Issues typically
addressed in development agreements include, but are not limited to: density and
intensity of land use; timing of development; financing methods and timing of
infrastructure; determination of traffic, noise, public facility and other impact fees; and
obligations for construction of streets and roads. Development agreements would be part
of a later City action generally occurring with City approval of a Stage 2 Planned
Development, Site Development Review and tentative subdivision map..
Williamson Act Cancellation
Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act
contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to
limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten
years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower
rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw
from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice of Non-Renewal.
Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based upon full market value
before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have
been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and
2010. It is anticipated that at least several of the property-owners of these four parcels
will request early cancellation of these contracts upon annexation to the City.
1. Project description
2. Lead agency:
3. Contact person:
4. Project location:
5. Project contact person:
6. General Plan designations:
7. Proposed Pre-zoning:
Application for a Stage 1 PD (prezoning), request
for annexation to the City of Dublin and DSRSD,
detachment from LARPD, request to enter into pre-
annexation agreements; and potential
Williamson Act contract cancellation for the four
parcels in Exhibit 8.
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
Anne Kinney, Dublin Planning Department
(925) 833-6610
North ofi-580 and east of Fallon Road
East Dublin Property Owners
c/o Shea Homes, Kathryn Watt
2580 Shea Center Drive
Livermore, CA 94550
(925) 245 3600
Low Density Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Medium
Density Residential (6.1-14.0 du~ac), Medium High
Density Residential (14.1-25.0 du/ac),. Rural
Residential/Agriculture (0.01 alu/ac), Neighborhood
Commercial (.25-.60 FAR), General Commercial
(.20-.60 FAR), Industrial Park (.35 FAR maximum),
Elementary School, Junior High School, Neighbor-
hood Park, Community Park, Neighborhood Square,
Open Space and Stream Corridor
PD-Single Family Residential, PD-Medium Density
Residential, PD-Medium High Density Residential,
PD-Neighborhood Commercial, PD-General
Commercial, PD-Industrial Park, PD - Future Study
Area (Rural Residential/Agriculture and General
Commercial), PD-Elementary School, PD-Junior
7
High School, PD-Neighborhood Park, PD-
Neighborhood Square, PD-Community
Park, PD-Rural Residential/Agriculture, and PD-
Open Space.
8. Other public agency required approvals:
· Annexation (City of Dublin)
· Annexation (DSRSD)
· Referral to Alameda County Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC)
· Detachment (LVJUSD)
· Detachment (LARPD)
· Attachment (DUSD)
· Stage 2 Development Plans (City of Dublin)
· Development Agreement
· Vesting tentative and final subdivision maps
(Dublin)
· Site Development Review
· Grading and building permits (City of
Dublin)
· Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
· Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
· Potentially:
Notice of Intent (Water Resources
Control Board)
404 Permit (US Army Corps of
Engineers)
Streambed Alteration Permit (California
Department of Fish and Game)
Permits from San Francisco Bay Region
Water Quality Control Board
Permits from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Encroachment or other permits from
CalTrans
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.
Aesthetics X Agricultural X Air Quality
Resources
X Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water Land Use/
Materials Quality Planning
Mineral Resources
X Noise Population/
Housing
X Public Services Recreation X Transportation/
Circulation
X Utilities/Service X Mandatory Findings
Systems of Significance
Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the
environment and a 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.
. X I find that although the proposed project may have a potentially significant effect, or
a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be
addressed.
. I find that although the propc~sed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
9
significar~ e~ect~: a) h~ve been ar~yzed ~d~quately in a~ earlier l~J~ pursuani to
appH~ble ~; and (b) have bee-~ avoided or mifig,~ed pm'sum~
~¢l~ling revisions or mi~$atlon m~zur~s that are imposed on the proposed proje~.
Signature: ~ /d.&.,~ Date: ....
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "n~ impa~t" answers that are
supported by the infom~tion sommes a load agency cites in the parenthesis
following each question, A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the
referenced informat/on sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g. the project fails outside a fault rupture zone),
or, in this case, there is no impact elr the proposed project beyond thai which
was mnstdered preadoUsly la the Eastern Dablha EIR and/or for which a
Statement of Overriding Coasideraflon was adop~d by lbo City Council at
the time the Eastern Dublin l/IR was cea-tiffed. A "no irrrpact" 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 text. tots to pollutants, based on a
projea-st:ecific screening analysis).
2)
All answers must take account of the whole action, including off-site as well as
ca-site, cumulative ~ well a.s project-l~vel, indirect as well as direct, and
construct/on as well as operational impacts.
3)
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if thom is substantial evidence that
an efr-ect is significant It there arc one or more "potentially significant impact"
entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
imphes elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect
fi'om "poterrtially sigzfificant effect" to a "less than significant impact". The lead
agency must deseri~ the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce
tho effect to a less than significant level.
Environmental Impacts (Note: Soar,~ ofdetermln~/on li.~ed in parenthesis. See
listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of thc checklist.)
I0
Issues:
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings,
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept.
of Conservation as an optional model to
use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
No
Impact
X
11
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment ~vhich, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available,
the significance criteria established by
the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptorsto
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
Les~ Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
12
a) Have a substantial adverSe effect,
either directly or 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department ofFish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
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?
e) Conflict w/th .any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
X
X
X
X
13
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
VI. 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 Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of
a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
Potentially
'Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
14
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
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 collapse?
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?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS--Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
c) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
15
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
d) 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 result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
e) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) 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?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
x
X
X
X
No
Impact
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that them
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
16
level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
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?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
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?
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?.
f) OtherWise substantially degrade water
quality?
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 hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year floOd hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people Or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
x
X
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
17
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND'PLANNING -
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
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, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X. 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?
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?
XIo NOISE -- Would the project result
in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
Potentially
Significant
Impact
18
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels 'in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
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 in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
-- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
X
19
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
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 governmental
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:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public
facilities, including roads?
XIV. RECREATION--
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deter/oration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
Less. Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
NO
Impact
X
X
20
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/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)?
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
or highways?
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?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS -- Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
X
No
Impact
X
X
X
21
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
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?
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?
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project, from
existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
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 projects
projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply With federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
LessThan
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
h) Have sufficient gas and electricity
supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources?
X
22
XVII. 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 or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the maj or periods
of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that' the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially Less Than Less Than
Significant Significant with Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
X
X
X
No
Impact
Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts:
1. City of Dublin General Plan (Revised July 7, 1998)
2. Final Eastem Dublin Specific Plan, City of Dublin (June 6, 1998)
3. Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (including the Draft and Final
EYRs, Addenda, etc.)
23
These documents are available for review at:
City of Dublin Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
XVII. Earlier Analyses
This Initial Study is being prepared to determine whether an earlier EIR (the EIR prepared
for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse
No. 91103064) may be used to evaluate the proposed project pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines (Section 15063 (c)(7)).
a)
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this
Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1992 Eastern Dublin
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State
,Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The
Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General
Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the
Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. As part of the certification the Council adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for the following impacts: cUmulative traffic,
extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service),
regional air quality, noise and visual.
The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to
this Project and which would be applied to any development within the Project area.
Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential
impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, several changes in circUmstances in which
the Project will take place have occurred and which could effect the impacts and/or
mitigations analysis of the Project. Such changes in circumstances include, but are not
limited to: 1) additions of species to the California and/or Federal Endangered or
Threatened Species Lists; 2) cOntinued development in the Tri-Valley area and beyond
with potential changes in commute patterns and traffic intensities, which also may affect
air quality and noise within or on the project area; 3) changes in California law regarding
annexations (i.e., adoption of AB 2838) which may affect the designation of portions of
the project site as prime agricultural soils; and 4) changes in the provision and
distribution of some public services (schools) and public utilities (water, wastewater,
storm drainage and gas and electricity).
Pursuant tv CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to
identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant imPacts on or of
24
the Project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. and which would require
additional environmental review.
Attachment to Initial Study
Discussion of Checklist
Legend PS:
LS:
NI:
Potentially Significant
Less Than Significant; or Less Than Significant due to the
previously adopted mitigation measures of the Eastern Dublin EIR
No Impact; or No Additional Impact beyond that which was
previously identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and/or for which a
Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted
I. AESTHETICS
Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant except for nine residences and some scattered agricultural
buildings. The Eastern Dublin EIR classifies the project site mainly as "dry-farming
rotational cropland" covering approximately the southern two-thirds of the site and "non-
native grassland" covering the northern one third. Where agricultural activity, including
grazing, historically has taken place, the visual image of the land is formed by patterns of
the soil that have been furrowed by mechanical means or livestock.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (pp. 71-72) identifies certain ridgelands and ridgetines
within the Project area as "visually sensitive". The lower spur ridges may be developed
consistent with Specific Plan land use designations as long as they meet certain
requirements specified in the Specific Plan. These include the lower, southern series of
east-west trending foothills and three other ridgelines behind these at a general elevation
of 500 feet. Development is prohibited on other ridgelines further to the east and north
'(please refer to Figure 6.3 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan). The City's General Plan
also identifies an elevation "cap" above which certain development is prohibited and
provides guidelines for sensitive development at certain elevations and slopes.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista?
LS. Approval' and cOnstruction of the proposed Project would alter the character of
existing scenic vistas and could obscure important sightlines if not mitigated.
25
This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.8/C, 3.8/D, 3.8/E, 3.8/G
and 3.8/1)) and with implementation of mitigation measures the identified impacts on
scenic vistas are less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures include: 3.8/3.0, 3.8/4.0-4.5, 3.8/5.0-5.2, 3.8/6.0, 3.8/7.0 and
3.8/7.1 (pages 3.8-4 through 3.8-9 of the. Eastern Dublin EIR). These mitigation
measures encourage preservation of important visual resources, minimized grading for
deVelopment; grading and building to preserve natural contours; prohibition of
development along identified ridgelines; and preservation of vie~vs of designated open
spaces. These mitigation measures apply to the entire project area.
In addition, Policies 6-29 through 6-38 and text discussion within the Specific Plan
provide direction for the type of development which may occur in "visually sensitive"
areas. These policies are directed towards preserving scenic vistas and view corridors and
provide guidelines for grading and building design and apply in addition to the above-
listed mitigation measures, to the 472-acre of the project within the Specific Plan area.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including state scenic highways?
LS, Development of the project site will altei- the visual experience of travelers on
scenic routes in eastern Dublin. Interstate 580 has been designated as a scenic corridor by
Alameda County. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan anticipates that the proposed Fallon
Road, which borders the Project area to the west, may be designated by the City as a
scenic corridor.
This potential impact (Impact 3.8/J) was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR and implementation of mitigation measures 3.8/8.0 and 3.8/8.1 (page 3.8-9) reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures encourage the City
to adopt certain roads as scenic corridors (including Fallon Road), and encourage the City
to require detailed visual analyses with development project applications (i.e., Stage 2
Planned Development applications). These mitigation measures apply to the entire
project area. Additionally, Policies 6-30 and 6-31 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
provide guidance for areas of the Project visible from a scenic corridor. These policies, in
addition to the above-listed mitigation measures, apply to the 472-acre of the project
within the Specific Plan area
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin E[R and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
26
c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site?
NI. This impact was addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.8/B - Alteration of
Rural/Open Space Visual Character and Impact 3.8/F - Alteration of Visual Character of
Flatlands). Development of the Project area would alter the existing rural and open space
qualities and alter the existing visual character of valley grasses and agricultural fields.
The EIR concluded that no mitigation measures could be identified to either fully or
partially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the EIR concluded
this impact would be a potentially significant unavoidable impact and an irreversible
change and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for this impact. The proposed project would not change' the scale of
development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not
change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is
necessary.
d) Create light or glare?
LS. Construction of the proposed project would increase the amount of light and glare
due to new street lighting and building security lighting. In some instances the additional
lighting could result as perceived negative aesthetic impacts through the "spill over" of
unwanted lighting onto adjacent properties, parks and other areas that are not intended to
be lighted. The anticipated light and glare generated by the proposed Project would not
be unique or sufficiently different fi.om other development projects within the City or the
Eastern Dublin planning area. In addition, development within a portion of the proposed
Project area is subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission for the Livermore
Municipal Airport: all potential light sources must meet the criteria established by the
ALUC prior to development. The City of Dublin has adopted regulations which limit the
amount of "spill-over" lighting and conditions of approval also are routinely adopted with
each project which address potential light and glare impacts. The City's zoning
ordinance, adopted site development review guidelines, and conditions of approval
become part of the project, if approved and the project would have impacts that are less-
than-significant.
Because light and glare created by the proposed Project would be typical of development
elsewhere in the City, and due to standard City regulations, light and glare impacts would
be less-than-significant.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Historically the Project site has been used for grazing, dry-land farming, a horse ranch,
and other non-intensive agricultural endeavors. The Eastern Dublin EIR characterizes the
majority of the area as farmland "of local importance" (Figure 3. l-B), which is defined as
those farmlands which contribute to the local production of food, feed, fiber, forage and
oilseed crops (p. 3.1-2). The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the discontinuation of
27
agricultural uses as an insignificant impact due to the high percentage of Williamson Act
contracts which were non-renewed and the limited value of the non-prime soils. And,
because the farmlands on the Project site were not considered "prime", their loss was
judged to be insignificant.
However, since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the evaluation of soils considered
as "prime" for annexation purposes has been modified through adoption of criteria
established by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
(Government Code Section 56064, referred to as Assembly Bill 2838). Soils which
previously would not have been considered as "prime agricultural soils" and land which
was not considered significant or important for agricultural purposes may now be
considered as such by the new law.
Project Impacts and Mitieation Measures
a, c) . Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which
could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use?
PS. According to the Agricultural Suitability Map for the Project area prepared by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, much of the site supports farmlands of "local
importance" since it contributes to the production of feed (grazing). Almost 59 acres of
the site are shown as containing Class I and II soils in the Land Use Capability
Classification system of the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Under Assembly
Bill 2838, Class I and II soils are considered "prime" as long as they have not been
developed with non-agricultural uses. Since the proposed Project includes annexation to
the City of Dublin and the Project area contains Class I and 11 soils, the effect of
conversion of the property from grazing use to non-agricultural, planned urban uses may
be apotentially significant environmental impact.
b) Conflict with existing, zoning for agricultural use, or a lZ/illiamson Act contract?
PS. Four of the thirteen parcels, approximately 637 acres, are under Williamson Act
contracts (please refer to Exhibit 8). Under the Williamson Act, the landowner agrees to
limit the use of land to agriculture and compatible uses for a minimum period of ten
years. In turn, the county in which the land is located agrees to tax the land at a lower
rate based upon its agricultural use rather than its real estate market value. To withdraw
from a contract, the land-owner must notify the county with a Notice' of..Non-Renewal.
Withdrawal involves a ten-year period of tax adjustments based UP0n' full'market value
before land can be removed from the preserve program. Notices of non-renewal have
been filed on the four parcels noted above, with contracts expiring in 2006, 2009 and
2010. It is anticipated that several of the property-owners of these four parcels will
request cancellation of these contracts. With recent amendments to annexation statutes
regarding the definition of prime agriculture lands further investigation of this potential
impact is warranted to determine if this will be significant.
28
III. AIR QUALITY
Environmental Setting
Dublin is located in the Th-Valley Air Basin. Within the Basin, state and federal
standards for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead are met. Standards for other
airborne pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and suspended particulate matter
(PM-10) are not met' in at least a portion of the Basin.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air .quality plan?
PS. Although the project itself may not contribute any more pollutants than originally
anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR, as a result of more rapid urbanization in the Th-
Valley area than originally expected, an increase in traffic through the Th-Valley fi.om
other areas, and changing commute patterns, the environment in which the project/vould
occur may have changed enough such that the project could contribute to emissions
exceeding Bay Area Air Quality Management DistriCt (BAAQMD) significance
thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards?
PS. For the reasons noted above (i.e., changed environmental setting of the project), the
project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance thresholds. This
may be a potentially significant impact.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants?
PS. For the reasons noted in a) above (i.e., the changed environmental setting of the
project), the project could contribute to emissions exceeding BAAQMD significance
thresholds. This may be a potentially significant impact.
d, e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create
objectionable odors?
NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will create emissions fi.om a variety
of miscellaneous stationary (non-vehicular) sources such as fuel combustion in power
plants or water heaters, industrial and commercial uses, evaporative emissions from
paints and cleaning products, etc. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that although such
emissions would be extremely small for any individual resident, they could be substantial
when summed over the entire scope of the project (Eastern Dublin E[R, p. 3.11-6). The
Eastern Dublin EIR identified this impact as a potentially significant cumulative impact
which could not be mitigated to achieve the eight-fold reduction in stationary source
emissions needed to meet the'insignificant threshold and, pursuant to CEQA, the City of
Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for this impact. The proposed
project would .not change the scale of development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR
29
for the project area and would not change the level of intensity of impact, therefore, no
additional discussion or analysis is necessary
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.7-A of the Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project area is dominated by
dry-fanning rotational cropland and non-native grasslands. A small area of arroyo willow
riparian woodland is located just to the east ofFallon Road: Several intermittent streams
and stock ponds also are indicated in this figure. Fields utilized for dry-farming typically
are cropped through various seasonal and annual rotations followed by fallow years.
Crops and croplands are not irrigated. The site is traversed generally north to south by
several drainages which may contain sensitive plant and/or animal species.
project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a)
Have a substantial adverse impact on a 'candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified twelve special status plant species, seventeen
special status amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species, and ten special status
invertebrate species which could potentially occur within the entire Eastern Dublin
planning area (Tables 3.7-1 and 3.7-2, pp. 3-7.19-21), based upon the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Fish and Game Commission listings at that time.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR, the regulatory status of some of these
species may have changed.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan includes policies to protect special status species
(Policies 6~17 and 6-20). Although the proposed Project would adhere to the adopted
mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, changes in regulatory circumstances such
as the adoption of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) critical habitat
area and its recommendations for habitat preservation and creation, could create a
potentially significant environmental impact if not re-addressed.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected
wetlands?
PS. Figure 3.7 - B of the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies areas within the project area
which potentially contain riparian habitat and springs based upon the location of
intermittent streams, stock ponds, seeps, etc. Utilizing Figure 3.7-B, it is estimated that at
least 14,000 linear feet of potential riparian habitat could exist within the Project area.
Although the EIR identifies mitigation measures and the Eastem Dublin Specific Plan
contains policies to address stream corridors and riparian and wetland areas (Policies 6~9
through 6-13 and 6-15), regulatory standards for such riparian habitats may have changed
since certification of the EIR (e.g.,. new standards for the California red-legged frog
30
identified in the recently approved critical habitat designation may require different
treatment of riparian and upland habitats). Although the proposed Project would adhere
to the adopted mitigation measures and Specific Plan policies, due to a change in
regulatory circumstances, the Project could have a potentially significant environmental
impact.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species?
PS. As noted above, the Eastern Dublin EI2~ identified a number of special status
wildlife species. Although mitigation measures in the Eastern Dublin EIR and policies
within the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 6-18 through 6-20) address potential
impacts to the movement of wildlife species, and this Project would be required to adhere
to those mitigation measures and policies, the Project may still have a potentially
significant impact due to changed regulatory standards regarding the movement of
wildlife. For example, recent approval of the critical habitat designation for the
California red-legged frog could require refinement of the impacts and/or mitigations
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EltO.
e,f)
Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any
adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans?
PS.' The Project would be required to comply will all local policies and ordinances
imposed by the City of Dublin. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains policies and
programs intended to protect biological resources and habitat areas and restore and
revegetate habitat where necessary and appropriate (Policies 6-15 through 6-23; Programs
6K-60). However, the Project site lies within the boundaries of the approximately 5.3
million acres in California recently approved as critical habitat for the California red-
legged frog. The proposed designation of the Project area as critical habitat is a changed
regulatory circumstance which could impact local policies and implementation of the
project as contemplated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. Hence, the changed regulatory
circumstance would result in apotentially significant environmental impact.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Chapter 3.9 of the Eastern Dublin EIR addresses the potential impacts on cultural
resources which may be located within the Project area. A field inspection of the entire
Eastern Dublin areas was performed in 1988. Three potential pre-historic sites (two of
them isolated' locales) and two historic sites were identified within the proposed Project
area (see pp. 3.9-4 - 3.9-6 of the Eastem Dublin EIR). Maps of these sites were not
included in the EIR to protect them from possible vandalism. The Eastern Dublin EIR
mandated additional project-level archeological surveys.
31
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources?
LS. Only two historic sites (a 1940's-era barn and an early 20th-century ranch/homestead
complex) were identified in the Project area. Due to the expected level of development
within the Project area, the Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all historic sites would be
disturbed or altered in some manner, even those located in areas designated for Open
Space. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR
Impact 3.9/C) and mitigation measures 3.9/7.0 through 3.9/12.0 (page 3.9-8) will reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require detailed
archival research for each structure to assess the structure's significance; encourage
adaptive re-use where feasible; and encourage the City to develop a preservation program
for historic sites which qualify under CEQA guidelines. Additionally, mitigation
measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0 (page 3.9-7) also would apply to the project. These
mitigations require cessation of all construction activities upon discovery of any
previously-unidentified historic sites.
Additionally, Policies 6-26 and 6-27 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan require in-depth
archival research to determine the significance of any resource prior to alteration and
encourage the adaptive re-use or restoration of historic structures whenever feasible.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources?
LS. There is a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological
and/or paleontological resources on the site. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these
resources as pre-historic cultural resources. Three potential pre-historic sites were
identified by the EIR within theproposed Project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed
that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential
impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and
implementation of mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7)
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such
resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as
"significant" under Appendix K of CEQA. Mitigation measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0,
described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously
unidentified pre-historic resources and these mitigation measures reduce the potential
impact to a less-than-significant level.
32
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring
research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the
significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
d) Disturb any human resources?
LS. A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be
uncovered on the site during construction activities. Implicit in the mitigation measures
of the Eastern Dublin EIR and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies is the potential for
discovery of human resources near or within the identified pre-historic and historic sites.
With implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures adopted with
certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR (mitigation measures 3.9/1.0- 12) and adherence
to the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies relating to cultural resources (Policies 6-24
and 6-25), this impact is less-than-significant.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no imPacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern .Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
V. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Setting
This section of the Initial Study addresses seismic safety issues, topography and
landforms, drainage and erosion and the potential impacts of localized soil types.
Seismic
The Project area is a part of the San Francisco Bay area, one of the most seismically
active regions in the nation. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes the presence of several nearby
significant faults, including the Calaveras Fault, Greenville Fault, Hayward Fault and San
Andreas Fault (pp. 3.6-1 - 3.6-2 and Figures 3.6-A and 3.6-B). The likelihood of a major
seismic event on one or more of these faults within the near future is believed to be high.
However, no active faults .are known to traverse the Project site and the site is not
identified as located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as determined by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
A second thrust fault system has been inferred in the Coast Ranges of the Bay Area that
may be seismically active. A belt of faults and folds has been mapped in sedimentary
rocks south of Mount Diablo, including one identified as the "leading edge:blind thrnst~
33
Mount Diablo Domain". Further investigation of this inferred fault has concluded that
the risk of ground rupture from this inferred fault is low within the Project area.
Site Geology and Soils
The site is underlain by the Tassajara geologic formation on the south and extensive
landslide deposits to the north. The Tassajara Formation consists of undifferentiated
claystone and siltstone, locally undifferentiated into sandstone, conglomerate and'
siltstone-claystone members.
Landforms and Topography
The project area is part of a broad north-south trending plain known as the Livermore-
Amador Valley. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 350 feet to 910
feet above sea level. Much of the property is gently rolling to almost flat but the extreme
northern and northeastern portions are steeply sloping terrain.
Geotechnical reports cited in the Eastern Dublin EIR indicate a history of landslides on
the site. The more steeply sloping northern and northeastern portions of the site contain
landslide areas. Many of these slides are relatively shallow and it is estimated that all can
be repaired or mitigated in the areas slated for urban development.
Drainage
Existing drainage patterns on the site includes a series of small, unnamed intermittent
streams. These streams are shown in Figures 3.7-A and -B in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
These intermittent streams generally follow a north-to-south direction, consistent with the
overall topography of the Eastern Dublin area. These streams are not delineated
drainages and do not terminate in other local creeks (such as Tassajara Creek) or
modified natural drainages (such as the Arroyo Mocho).
Proiect Impacts and Mitiaation Measures
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?
LS. Similar to many areas of California, the site could be subject to ground shaking
caused by the regional faults identified above. Under moderate to severe seismic events
which are probable in the Bay Area over the next 30 years, buildings, utilities and other
improvements constructed in the project area would be subject to damage caused by
ground shaking. However, since the Project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo
Special Studies Zof~e, the potential for ground rupture is anticipated to be minimal.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-
shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With
implementation of mitigation measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking
34
(Impact 3.6/'B - damage to structures and infrastructure, potential loss of life) are reduced
to a less-than-significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral
forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major
structural damage and loss of life.
Mitigation measures 3.6/2.0 through 3.6/8.0 will be implemented to reduce the secondary
effects of ground-shaking (Impact 3.6/C - seismically induced landslides, differential
compaction/settlement, etc.), to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures
require: stabilization of unstable landforms where possible or restriction of improvements
from unstable landforms; appropriate grading in hillside areas; utilization of properly
engineered retention structures and fill; design of roads and infrastructure to
accommodate potential settlement; and completion of design-level geotechnical
investigations (pp. 3.6-8 through 3.6-9).
Adherence to Mitigation Measures MM 3.6/1.0 through 8.0 will ensure that new
structures and infrastructure built within the project area will comply with generally
recognized seismic safety standards so that effects due to ground shaking will be less-
than-significant.
The majority of the Project area contains gently to steeply sloping hillsides. The northern
and northeastern portions have a history of landslides. As part of the development of the
area the site is proposed to be graded and re-contoured to accommodate building pads,
roads, infrastructure, parks, schools, parking areas and other development features. The
Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project site could result in permanent
changes in existing landforms, particularly if substantial grading occurs. Two mitigation
measures reduce this impact to less-than-significant.
Mitigation measure 3.6/9:0 states that grading plans which adapt improvements to natural
landforms, use retaining structures and steeper cut and fill slopes where appropriate, and
construction of roads on ridges reduce impacts to landforms. Mitigation measure
3.6/10.0 states that specific project lot and infrastructure alignment should be based on
the identification of geotechnically feasible building areas, clustering structures, and
avoiding adverse conditions by utilizing lower density development in the hillside areas.
The Eastem Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies aimed at reducing impacts related
to landform changes and reducing potential impacts related to landslides. Policies 6-40
through 6-42 restrict structures on slopes of 10-30% and generally preclude structures on
slopes of greater than 30%.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
35
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil?
LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that development of the Project site will modify the
existing ground surface and alter patterns of surface runoff and infiltration and could
result in a short-term increase in erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities
(Impact 3.6/'I4). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface
and removal of existing vegetation (Impact 3.6/L). With implementation of Mitigation
Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 (pp. 3.6-14 - 3.6-I5) these impacts are less-than-significant.
These mitigation measures specify and require the preparation and implementation of
erosion control measures to be utilized on a short-term and long-term basis. In addition
to these measures, the Project would be subject to erosion control and water quality
control measures implemented by the state Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43) which requires that new
development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of
construction activities.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
c, d)
Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or will result in potential
lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse?
LS. Portions of the Project area are underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell
potential which have the potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement
(impact 3.6/H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0 through 16.0 (.pp. 3.6-
11 - 12) and by requiring appropriate structural foundations and other techniques to
overcome shrink-swell effects, potential shrink-swell impacts will be less-than-
significant.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that impacts of slope instability are considered to be
potentially significant (Impacts 3.6/I and 3.6/J), but can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0 - 26.0 (pp. 3.6-12
- 3.6-14). These mitigation measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and
geotechnical studies minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of
appropriate design criteria; removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of
surface and subsurface drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1
cut slopes unless retained; maintaining minimum 2:I fill slopes unless properly benched,
keyed or treated with a geo-grid; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform
Building Code and other City requirements for grading.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue'to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
36
e)
Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not
available?
NI. All new development within the Project area would be connected to a public sanitary
sewer system installed by the Project developer and maintained by the Dublin San Ramon
Services District which serves all of the City of Dublin. No septic systems are proposed.
'Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Setting
The site is primarily open grasslands and currently contains nine single family residences
and some agricultural out-buildings. Historically, the Project site has been used for
agriculture, primarily as grazing land and limited dry-farming of crops. Much of the
Project area currently' is utilized for grazing. Some pesticide and organicide use may be
associated with these agricultural uses and some petroleum-based products probably have
been used to run and maintain farm equipment. Similar types of petroleum-based
products may be in use at a limited trucking and truck storage use located on one of the
parcels. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been performed for each parcel
comprising the Project .site and typical levels of organicides, pesticides and limited
amounts of petroleum-based products have been identified in localized areas around
outbuildings. Additionally, one of the parcels was discovered to have been used as a
gasOline service station but this use was discontinued in the 1960's and no structures
remain. No parcels within the Project area have been listed as a hazardous site or as a
hazardous materials generator.
Based upon the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments performed for each
property within the Project area, a Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment would be
required for some of those parcels to further identify any potential hazardous materials.
Policy 11-1 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan requires that prior to the issuance of
building permits for sites in the project area, such environmental site assessments are
required. If applicable, remediation measures would be recommended and required prior
to development in accordance with State law.
Proiect Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b)
Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release
or emission of hazardous materials?
LS. ProPosed uses of the site would include residential, general and retail commercial,
industrial park, schools, and parks. Only 'minor less-than-significant quantities of
potentially hazardous materials such as lawn chemicals, household solvents, etc., would
be associated with the majority of the proposed uses. The Project's proposed Industrial
Park. designation and the Project's proposed uses relate most closely to the City of
Dublin's M-1 or Light Industrial District, although the types of industrial uses permitted
37
under the zoning ordinance include light and heavier industrial uses with some
manufacturing. Some potentially hazardous materials may be utilized by these industrial
type uses but the storage, use and disposal of such materials would be controlled through
a hazardous materials business plan required to be filed by any such user with the
Alameda County Fire Department which provides such service to the City of Dublin.
With the expected minimal use of hazardous materials and the requirement for adhering
to a hazardous materials business plan, this impact is less-than-significant.
c) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site?
LS. None of the parcels comprising the Project area have been listed as a hazardous
materials site. As noted above, Phase I Environmental Site Assessments have been
completed for each individual parcel comprising the Project area. Levels of organicides,
pesticides, and petroleum-based products typical of agricultural uses have been
discovered near existing agricultural outbuildings but these levels are less-than-
significant. Should the Project be approved, Phase 1/Environmental Site Assessme. nts
will be performed on each parcel prior to construction. Remediation measures, if needed,
would be recommended and completed in accordance, with State and Federal
requirements. This impact is considered to be less-than-significant.
d)
Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private
airstrip?
LS. The Livermore Municipal Airport is located to the south of the Project area across 1-
580 and south of the Los Positas Golf Course. The Federal Aviation Administration
classifies the airport as a "general transport" airport and the airport can accommodate
turbojets under 60,000 pounds and general aviation aircraft of lesser weight.
The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an Alameda
County Airport Land Use Policy Plan in 1986 which defines "General. Referral and
Height Referral Areas" for the Livermore Municipal Airport. Portions of the Project area
fall within these referral areas. The General Referral Area extends 4,000 feet north of 1-
580. Proposed land uses and activities subject to review Under State ALUC law must be
referred to the County ALUC. The Height Referral area encompasses an area 20,000 feet
from the runways in all directions (approximately 15,000 feet north of 1-580) and 200 feet
above ground level in the Height Referral area.
The ALUC amended the Policy Plan in 1993 to create an Airport Protection Area (APA)
around the Livermore Airport. Development or expansion of residential uses within the
APA is prohibited. At the time the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR
were adopted, this APA had not yet been established. However, the Specific Plan
anticipated that some residentially-designated land within the Eastern Dublin area would
be located within the future APA. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan indicates that
residentially-designated lands so affected by adoption of .the APA must be designated
"Future Study Area" (p.16). The APA does affect approximately 22 percent of the
southern portion of the Project area. Approximately 96 acres of the project area,
originally slated for potential residential development, now are designated as Future
38
Study Area with an underlying designation of rural residential/agriculture, a designation
which essentially will not allow for any intensity of land use greater than what is existing.
The project is not proposing any changes to this land use designation and hence, is in
compliance with the established APA. Since the Specific Plan already anticipated land
use changes which might occur as a result of the ALUC's actions, and designated the land
accordingly, this is a less-than-significant impact.
e)
Represent a safety hazard to persons if located within t~vo miles of a ])rivate
airstrip?
NI. The project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip.
f) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan?
LS. The proposed Project would be developed in phases, as is feasible with the
extension of services and utilities to the area. Adequate emergency access to all portions
o/' the Project site under construction would be required to be provided per the City of
Dublin's ordinances and policies. Emergency access, requires that structures and
occupants of structures can be accessed by emergency vehicles and personnel and also
requires that residents are able to evacuate an area in case of some form of hazard or
threat of hazard. Adequate water service for fire-fighting and installation of hydrants or
other approved alternative water supply systems would be required per City policy as the
project develops.
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicated a mitigation measure (3.4/9.0) to address access, water
pressure, fire safety and prevention to reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
significant level. This mitigation measure requires that certain design standards are
incorporated into Project approvals such as: available capacity of 1,000 GPM at 20 PSI
fire flow from project fire hydrants on public mains; installation of a buffer zone along
the backs of homes contiguous with wildland open space areas; and compliance with
minimum road widths, maximum street slopes,, parking requirements, and secondary
access road requirements. Policy 8-6 of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also requires
provision of emergency vehicle access from subdivisions to open space areas among
other fire prevention methods to address concerns with emergency access and evacuation.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policy would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
LS. The proposed project includes a significant amount of open space intermixed with
proposed residential uses in accordance with the land use designations of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. However, the relationship ofwildland open space
to urbanized uses has the potential to increase the risk of wildland fires spreading to
39
urban areas. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the risk of constructing new communities
in proximity to high fire hazard open space areas since it would pose an increasing
wildfire hazard to people and property if open space areas were not maintained for fire
safety (Impact 3.4/E). Mitigation measures 3.4/6.0 - 13.0 (pp. 3.4-5 - 3.4-7) will reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require
construction of new facilities to coincide with new service demands; establishment of
funding mechanisms for construction of such facilities; incorporation of Dougherty
Regional Fire Authority (and, implicitly, any other fire authority which would service the
area), requirements into the project design; integration of fire trails and fire breaks into
the open space trail system; and preparation and implementation of a ~vildfire
management plan for the area.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains two policies (Policy 8-5 and 8-6, p. 125)
which address the construction of new facilities and requirements to minimize the
potential for impacts from wildland fires.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would'continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analYZed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
The Project area is located within the Alameda Creek watershed which drains to the San
Francisco Bay. The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). The northern
portion of the site is hilly and transitions to relatively flat areas immediately adjacent to
the 1-580 freeway. Three intermittent streams flowing in a north-south direction transect
the Project area. These drainages appear to originate in the northern, hilly portions of the
site but do not drain into any distinct creek or channel. In some locations these drainages
have been impounded for use as stock ponds. These drainages do not carry water
consistently year-round and are more apparent during the spring season.
Based on the Flood Insurance Rate. Map (FIRM) published by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) [Community Panel No. 115 of 325, 060001-0115-C,
Alameda County, dated September 17, 1997], none of the Project area is located within a
500-year or 100-year flood plain.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
LS. Site grading (cut and fill) will occur to construct roadways, building pads, utilities
connections and similar improvements. Proposed grading could increase the potential of
40
erosion and increase the amount of sediments carried by storm-water run-off into creeks
and other bodies of water, on and off the Project site. These impacts were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With adherence to mitigation
measures 3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5
- 27) these impacts would be less-than-sig'nificant.
These mitigation measures require: drainage facilities to minimize any increased potential
for erosion; channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes
with natural vegetation where possible; preparation of a Master Drainage Plan for each
development prior to development (Stage 2 Planned Development) approval; facilities
and management practices which protect and enhance water quality; specific water
quality investigations which address water quantity and quality of mn-off; and
community-based programs to educate local residents and business on methods to reduce
non-point sources of pollutants.
Additionally, development of individual parcels within the Project area will be required
to prepare Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), listing Best Management
Practices which reduce the potential for water quality degradation during construction and
post°construction activities. These measures can include revegetation of graded areas, silt
fencing and use of biofilters within parks and other landscaped areas. These individual
SWPPPs must conform to standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and City of Dublin and shall be approved by the City of Dublin prior to issuance of
grading permits. Both agencies monitor construction and post-construction activities
according to the SWPPP and adjustments are made during project construction as
necessary to erosion control methods and water quality protection as field conditions
warrant. Specific development projects containing five acres of more are also required to
submit a Notice of Intent from the State Water ResourCes Control Board prior to
commencement of grading.
The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies which reflect the mitigation
measures of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan listed above. Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and
Programs 9T through 9X (pp. 133-134) address the potential for erosion and changes in
water quality, storm water mn-off and storm drainage due to development of the Project
area.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lower the local groundwater
table?
LS. Current uses of the property depend upon wells (groundwater), irrigation wells
(groundwater) and impounded surface waters (stock ponds) for domestic use and
agricultural uses. As development of the Project area occurs, public water systems would
be extended to serve the area, reducing the direct need for individual wells to service each
41
property. The Eastern Dublin EIR noted that development of the Project could have an
impact on local ground water resources and groundwater recharge due to an increase in
the amount of impervious surfaces within the Project site (Impact 3.5/Z). With
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 3.5/50.0 (page 3.5-26), this impact
is less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin EIR also noted that the Project is located in
an area of minimal groundwater recharge stating that groundwater reserves and the
majority of the Tri-Vatley's groundwater resources are in the Central Basin, south of the
Project area. Mitigation measure 3.5/50.0 notes that Zone 7 supports on-going
groundwater recharge programs for the Central Basin.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including stream courses, such that
substantial siltation or erosion would occur?
LS. Development of the project site could change existing natural drainage patterns in
the area. Approval of the proposed Project and implementation of individual
development projects within the Project area could increase stormwater runoff from the
site due to construction and post-construction activities and thereby increase the potential
for erosion. These impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and
3.5/AA) in relation to item a) above. With implementation of Mitigation Measures
3.5/44.0 - 46.0, 49.0, 51.0 and 52.0 of the Eastern Dublin EI]~ (pp. 3.5-35 - 3.5 - 27)
these impacts are less-than-significant. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains
policies and programs (Policies 9-7 throug~h 9-9 and Programs 9T through 9X, pp. t33-
134) which reduce these impact to a less-than-significant level.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
With implementation of other mitigation measures enacted to reduce erosion due to
grading activities (Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0), these impacts would be less-
than-significant. Please refer to the previous section entitled Geology and Soils for a
discussion of these mitigation measures.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
Substantially alter existing drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off
the project site ?
LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of new housing units and other
land uses envisioned in the proposed project would change drainage patterns within the
project area. This impact was identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.5Y) and
with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0 - 3.5/48.0 it is less-than-
42
significant. These mitigation measures require drainage facilities to minimize flooding;
channel improvements consisting of natural creek bottoms and side slopes with natural
vegetation where possible; a Master Drainage Plan for each development prior to
development approval; facilities to alleviate potential downstream flooding due to project
development; and the construction of backbone storm drainage facilities.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
e)
Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or
add substantial amounts of polluted runofF?.
LS. Development of the Project area and post-construction activities unrelated to Project
construction could lead to greater quantities of stormwater runoff and could include
pollutants in the runoff. These potential impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With implementation of mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-
49.0 and 3.5/51.0 of the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant. Policies
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T through
9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would be less-
than-significant.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EI2R and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
f) Substantially degrade water quality?
LS. Construction activities related to development of the Project area and post-
construction activities could degrade water quality through improper construction
practices and poor control of storm water runoff resulting in additional sedimentation and
potential pollutants in on-site or down-stream waters. These impacts were identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impacts 3.5/Y and 3.5/AA). With mitigation measures 3.5/44.0-
49.0 and 51.0 adopted in the Eastern Dublin EIR this impact is less-than-significant.
Policies of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Policies 9-7 through 9-9 and Programs 9T
through 9X, pp. 133-134) also would be implemented and, as such, these impacts would
be less-than-significant.
Please refer to item a) above for a discussion of these mitigation measures and policies.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project and the
Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre portion within the Specific
Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
43
g, i)
Place housing within a ]O0-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood
Insurance Rate Map or expose people or structures to a significant risk due to
flooding or failure ora levee or dam ?
NI. None of the project area is located within a 100-year flood plain as mapped by
FEMA and no new dwellings would be located in a flood hazard area. There are no
upstream dams in the Project area which would place people or structures within the
project area in flood danger due to dam failure. There would be no impact in regard to
flooding hazards.
h)
Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flow?
NI. As noted in the response to "g" above, none of the project area is located within a
100 year flood hazard area as defined by FEMA. Development of the Project site is not
expected to impede or redirect flood flows and no impact is anticipated.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows?
LS. The site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche or
'tsunami. The risk of potential mudflow is considered low. With mitigation measures
adoPted in the Eastern Dublin EIR (measures 3.6/17.0 - 28.0, pp. 3.6-12 - 3.6-15),
potential impacts of natural and engineered slope stability, and erosion and sedimentation
impacts which could create mudflows would be less-than significant. These mitigation
measures require the preparation of site-specific soils and geotechnical studies
minimizing grading on steep slopes and the formulation of appropriate design criteria;
removal/reconstruction of unstable materials; construction of surface and subsurface
drainage improvements; reduction of cut-and-fill; maintaining 3:1 cut slopes unless
retained; maintaining minimum 2:1 fill slopes unless properly benched, keyed or treated
with a geo-ghd; utilizing engineered fill; and adherence to the Uniform Building Code
and other City requirements for grading.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
IX.' LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Setting
The Project area abuts the eastern city limit boundary of the City of Dublin (please refer
to Exhibit 2). The entire project area is located within the City of Dublin's General Plan
Planning Area and Sphere of Influence. Approximately 472 acres of the project area also
are included within the City's Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area (please refer to Exhibit
4). The project site consists of thirteen (13) different parcels under eleven (11) separate
44
ownerships (please refer to Exhibit 7). The proposed land use designations of the Project
reflect the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations for the Project area. The
proposed residential densities and non-residential development intensity are consistent
with the mid-point density and development intensity (floor area ratio) ranges listed in the
General Plan and Specific Plan. The proposed land uses associated with each of the
proposed land use designations are consistent with the City zoning districts which would
implement those land uses and they are consistent with the types of uses approved and/or
developed within other areas of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan.
MeasureD
In November of 2000, voters in Alameda County adopted a local land use initiative
known as "Measure D." This initiative created a County Urban Gro~vth Boundary within
the Alameda County East County Planning Area (ECAP). One of the purposes of this
initiative is to "focus urban-type development in and near existing cities where it will be
efficiently served by public facilities, thereby avoiding high costs to taxpayers and users
as well as to the environment". The initiative is designed to prohibit the County
government from considering urban development outside the "Growth Boundary." The
472-acre portion of the project site that is within the City's Specific Plan is located within
the Urban Growth Boundary adopted by Measure D. The remainder of the project site,
although within the City's adopted and recognized Sphere of Influence and within the
City's General Plan Planning Area, appears to lie outside of the Measure D Urban
Growth Boundary Limit. [NOTE: Review of Measure D indicates a discrepancy
between the Urban Growth Boundary Limit Map and the text describing which areas are
within the Urban Growth Boundary Limit. This potential discrepancy does not change
the analysis, below.]
Measure D restricts development in the County, but it does not limit development by
cities that are within the County, nor does it create or impose any urban growth
boundaries on those cities. Because the entire project site is within the City's Sphere of
Influence and the proposed development within the project area is addressed by the
General Plan, the project is not constrained or otherwise limited by Measure D. The
County recognized that, in the case of Eastern Dublin, the area already has been planned
for development and eventual annexation is anticipated. (Alameda County Community
Development Agency Report to Board of Supervisors dated July 25, 2000.)'
Measure D also contains language that limits the County's ability to cancel Williamson
Act contracts. Upon annexation of the project area to the City, the Williamson Act
contracts would be assigned to and assumed by the City. The City would then have the
discretion whether or not to cancel th~ contracts should cancellation be requested for the
proposed Project. Measure D does not restrict the City's actions regarding Williamson
Act contracts, however, any requested cancellation would be processed in accordance
with statutory provisions and procedures.
Measure D provides that the County encourage Zone 7 to pursue, new water supply
sources and storage facilities only to the extent necessary to serve the rates' and levels of
growth established by Measure D and by the general plans of the cities within the service
45
area. Since the City's General Plan provides for the development proposed, any
additional water supply sources or facilities required to serve the Project are consistent
with Measure D. Measure D's restriction on the County's ability to provide or authorize
public facilities in excess of that needed for permissible development consistent with
Measure D does not limit the ability to provide the services needed to serve the project
area.
Hence, Measure D does not contain any language which would create a changed
circumstance or potential for new impacts not already addressed or analyzed by the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Physically divide an established community?
NI. All parcels which comprise the Project site are contiguous and are not separated by
freeways, arterial roadways, or natural barriers. The Project area is adjacent to the City
of Dublin's eastern boundary and current urban development area; land to the east of the
Project area is as-yet undeveloped. Development of the Project area with the urban uses
designated in the City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would be a
continuation of Dublin as a community. Development of the project site would not
divide any established communities or neighborhoods and hence, there would be no
impact..
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation ?
NI. The Project as proposed is consistent with the land use designations of the General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project's proposed "pre-zoning" designations
are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan land use designations. The Eastern
Dublin EIR evaluated the potential land use impacts of the project based upon the
assumption that residential development would occur at the mid-point of the residential
development densities, and commercial, office and industrial development would occur at
the mid-range of the floor area ratios designated for each of those land uses. The project
does not propose densities or land use intensifies different from that anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. The project is required to adhere to all policies and programs of the
General Plan.and, as applicable to the 472 acres, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The
project is required to adhere to all City ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of
project development.
c)
Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
NI. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been
adopted by the City or other agency. The Project area recently has been included in the
approximately 5.4 million acres in Califomia proposed by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service as critical habitat for the red-legged frog. Although this may not be a
potentially significant land use impact, land uses within the Project area could be affected
46
by this designation and, as such, the location and intensity of land uses indicated in the
City's General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan could be impacted by this changed
circumstance There would be no impact to a habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, but changed circumstances due to other agencies' potential
regulatory action could create an impact. This impact, however, is related to biologic
resources and has been identified as a potentially significant impact under the Biologic
Resources section of this Initial Study.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
The subject area currently contains no known mineral resources although a now-defunct
gravel pit is located within the Project area on the Fallon Enterprises property just to the
east of Fallon Road. The gravel pit has not been in operation for a number of years and is
not currently extracting, producing, or processing any resources.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral
resources?
NI. The former quarry is not currently extracting resources and there is no indication
that the current property-owners wish to renew quarry operations. In any case, the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan land uses designations for the area do not
specifically permit such use. There are no other known significant mineral resources
located within the Project. Development of the Project as proposed (or modified) would
have no impact on mineral resources.
XI. NOISE
Environmental Setting
Major sources of noise on and adjacent to the project area include noise generated by
vehicles on 1-580, noise generated by traffic on arterial roadways near the project area,
and aircraft flyovers, mainly from aircraft utilizing the Livennore Airport.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a, d)
Would the project expose persons to generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard or to
substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels?
PS. Vehicle noise from 1-580 would be most apparent to new land uses immediately
adjacent to the freeway. Development of the project as proposed and in accordance with
47
the land use designations of the General Plan and Specific' Plan would include the
construction of new arterial roadways and streets. Traffic would be introduced into new
residential neighborhoods and urban noise associated ~vith commercial, industrial and
other uses would be introduced to the Project area. Although the Eastern Dublin EIR
addresses impacts due to this type of noise (Impacts 3.10/A and 3.10/F) and adopted
mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level (Mitigation
Measures 3.10/1.0, 3.10/6.0), changed environmental circumstances related to
urbanization in the Tri-valley and beyond with potential changes in commute patterns and
increased traffic along 1-580 - may create a potentially significant impact.
b)
Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels ?
PS. Groundborne vibrations could be caused primarily by heavy traffic along the freeway
and along new arterial streets from heavy_ vehicles traveling primarily to the commercial
or industr/al sites within the project area. These ambient vibrations would increase
permanently due to the proposed change in land use from primarily agriculture to urban
uses, and the traffic associated with them. The Eastern Dublin EtR identified permanent
impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and implicitly, impacts due to urban noise
and vibration), as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact. The
proposed project would not change the scale or type of development anticipated in the
Eastern Dublin EIR for areas within the project area and would not change the level of
intensity of impact; therefore, no additional discussion or analysis is necessary.
However, as noted above, development of the Project area according to the General Plan
and Specific Plan includes construction of arterial roads and local streets. These arterial
roadways have the potential to create excessive groundborne noise to the volume of daily
and peak hour traffic. Similarly, construction activities within the Project area could
create temporary vibrations and noise in localized areas. Although the Eastern Dublin
EIR addresses impacts related to ground-borne noise (Impact 3.10/A and F) and indicates
mitigation measures which could reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level,
changed circumstances due to the level of urbanization within the Th-Valley and beyond
which has changed commute patterns and traffic intensities and could change the
expected level of groundborne noise anticipated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. This
changed circumstance could result in a potentially significant impact.
c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels?
NI. Development of the Project area with urban uses will introduce noise to the Project
area. Ambient noise levels would increase permanently due to the proposed change in
land use from pr/madly agriculture to urban uses. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
permanent noise impacts related to vehicular traffic increases (and imPlicitly urban
noises) as an unavoidable and unmitigatable impact and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted by the City Council for this impact; no additional discussion
or analysis is necessary. The proposed project would not change the scale of
48
development anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area and would not
change the level of intensity of impact.
Expose people residing or worla'ng within Cwo miles of a public airport or in the
vicinity ora private airstrip to excessive noise levels?
NI. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project, therefore, no
impact would result. The project area is located near the Livermore Airport and new
residents and workers within the project area could be exposed to aircraft noise from
aircraft traveling to and from the airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR determined that aircraft
noise was a less-than-significant impact (Impact 3.10/C, p. 3.10-4) and no mitigation
measure was proposed.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
EnVironmental Setting
Data from Projections 2000, published by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), expects the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region to add approximately
1,096,300 new residents by the year 2020. This represents an increase of about 16
percent over the 20-year forecast period from 2000 - 2020. ABAG expects
approximately 401,750 new households in the region by year 2020. ABAG estimates
that Dublin's population (including its Sphere of Influence) was'31,500 in the year' 2000
and is projected to grow to 66,600 by 2020, and increase of 111%. ABAG estimates that
the increase in new households will create a demand for at least 20,000 new dwellings
each year. The City of Dublin is expected to provide 21,290 dwellings by the year 2020.
The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated that the Eastern Dublin area would create 12,458 new
dwelling units (Table 3.2-5, page 3.2-7), generating a new resident population of 27,794.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
NI. Development of the project area according to the City's General Plan and as
expected by the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would increase population in the project
area but not beyond that anticipated or planned-for according to the City's General Plan
or as anticipated or evaluated by the Eastem Dublin EIR. The City's General Plan
contains Guiding and Implementing policies (6.3.A, 2.1.2.C, 2.1.3.A, 2.1.4.A, 6.4B, and
6.4E) to provide a range of housing types. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan contains
policies to provide a diversity of housing opportunities that meets the social, economic
and physical needs of future residents (policies 4-2 through 4-6).
49
b, c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing vz;xits or
people?
NI. The project area contains nine existing residences and various agricultural out-
buildings and land uses. Current residents and uses could remain in place until such time
as development of those particular parcels occurs over time. Due to the limited number
of current residents, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing
housing units or people and no impact is expected.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
Water~ Sewer. The project area currently is located within the jurisdiction of Alameda
County. The County has limited abilities to provide water or wastewater services to the
project area: current residents and land uses rely upon private wells and septic systems
for these services. The City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District
(DSRSD) have worked jointly to ensure that areas annexed to the City also are annexed to
DSRSD. The Eastern Dublin EIR and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
anticipated that the Project area would be serviced by DSRSD. Additionally, DSRSD's
master utilities plans for water, wastewater and recycled watei- include the Project area.
The Project area must be annexed into the DSRSD service area.
Fire Protection. Fire protection services for the project area are provided by the
Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD). Since the City of Dublin contracts with
ACFD for services, upon annexation to the City, the ACFD would continue service to the
Project area.
Police Protection. The Alameda County Sheriff's Office and the Califomia Highway
Patrol (CHP) currently provide police services to the project area. Upon annexation,
Dublin Police Services would provide services to the area including enforcement of
traffic laws which the CHP currently provides and enforcement of city ordinances and
state law. Dublin Police Services is under contract with the Alameda County Sheriff's
office: the City of Dublin owns the department's facilities and equipment but the
personnel are employed by the Sheriff's Office Police and security protection includes
24 hour security patrols throughout the community in addition to crime prevention, crime
suppression and traffic safety.
Schools. The Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District (LVJUSD) provides
educational services to the project area. However, a request is being prepared to detach
from the LVJUSD and attach it to the service area of the Dublin Unified School District.
The City of Dublin and the Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) prefer that ail areas
within the City of Dublin be served by DUSD schools. In this case, the Project area is
more readily served by DUSD than LJVUSD since the project area is adjacent to DUSD.
5O
Maintenance. Other than limited County roads within the project area (Fallon Road and
Croak Road), the County provides limited maintenance service to the Project area. Upon
annexation to the City of Dublin maintenance of streets, roads and other public facilities
within the project area would be the responsibility of the City of Dublin Public Works
Department.
Solid Waste Service. The County does not currently provide solid waste disposal
service: property-owners must dispose of waste at local transfer stations. Upon
annexation to the City of Dublin, solid waste service would be provided by the
Livermore/Dublin Disposal Company.
Other services. The project area utilizes the Alameda County library services and other
government services provided to Alameda County residents. Upon annexation to the City
of Dublin, many of these services would be provided by the City.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Although the Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the impacts of development of the project
area on services and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the identified impacts to
a less than significant level, some of these impacts still may be potentially significant for
the project area due to changed circumstances.
a) Fire protection ?
LS. The project proposes approximately 2,526 new residences and a little over 1.4
million square feet of commercial and industrial building area to be developed in phases.
The number of new residences and amount of commercial, industrial and institutional
floor space was evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for
fire services and fire response to outlying areas were considered significant impacts (IM
3.4/D and 3.4/E) and with implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 -
MM3.4/11), these impacts are less-than-significant. These mitigation measures require
construction of new facilities timed to coincide with development; require appropriate
funding mechanisms for capital improvements; identify and acquire new fire station sites;
and incorporate fire safety measures into project design.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
b) Police protection?
LS. Development of the project as proposed could result in almost 6,000 new residents
and almost 3,000 new employees in the Project area. The number of new residents and
amount of commercial, industrial and institutional floor space was evaluated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR for the project area. Demand for police services and police services
accessibility .were considered significant impacts OM 3.4/A and 3.4/B) and with
implementation of mitigation measures (MM 3.4/6.0 - MM3.4/ll), these impacts are
_ 51
less-than-significant. These mitigation measures include provision of additional personal
and facilities; coordination of development timing to services can be expanded;
incorporation of police department recommendations into project design; and preparation
of budget strategies for personnel and facilities as annexing areas become served by
Dublin's Police Department.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the project. There are no
impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ErR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
c) Schools?
PS. Up to 1,400 new K-12 students could be generated by the project. Changes in
student generation rates due to changed regional economic circumstances may have a
different impact on the number and age distribution of students originally anticipated and
evaluated by the Eastern Dublin EIR. In addition, the type of schools originally expected
to have been constructed according to the Eastern Dublin ErR may have changed. Also,
the level of funding and amount of school fees which may be charged according to State
law may have changed so that the project could have a different impact on the provision
of school facilities and programs. This could be a potentially significant impact.
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
LS. Numerous arterial, collector and local streets and roads will be constructed in the
project area. All such streets and public facilities would be constructed by the project
developers. Maintenance of these facilities was anticipated by the Eastern Dublin ErR
and considered a significant impact (EM 3.12/A and 3.12/B). Implementation of
mitigation measures (MM 3.12/1.0- 8.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance.
These mitigation measures encourage development agreements; adoption by the City of
an area of benefit ordinance; creation of Special Assessment of Mello Roos Community
Facilities Districts; City evaluation of Marks-Roos bond pooling; and consideration of
City-wide developer and builder impact fees.
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There
are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin ErR and therefore no
additional review or analysis is necessary.
XI¥. RECREATION
Environmental Setting
Since the project area is not currently developed with urban uses the area contains no
parks or other recreational facilities. Nearby community and regional parks inclUde
Emerald Glen Park, a 50-acre city park now being developed by the City of Dublin
immediately west of Tassajara Road, and two community parks slated for development
elsewhere in the Eastern Dublin area. The combined area of the two community parks is
52
126 acres. Each of these parks would allow for organized sports activities and individual
sports as well as for passive recreation. Numerous neighborhood parks and neighborhood
squares have been included in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan
planning areas. The East Bay Regional Park District also has developed a staging area on
the west side of Tassajara Road as part of a regional recreational trail s.,ystem.
The Project proposes adding approximately 14 acres to one of the community parks listed
above and several neighborhood parks and squares to serve the new residents and
employees generated by project development.
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks?
LS. The proposed development would cause an increase in demand for neighborhood,
community and regional park facilities due to an increase in the number of people within
the project area. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the demand for park facilities as a
potentially significant impact (EM 3.4/K). Implementation of the mitigation measures as
policies within the General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (MM 3.4/20.0 -
28.0) reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures and
policies encourage expanding park areas; maintaining and improving outdoor facilities in
conformance with the City's Park and Recreation master Plan; acquire and improve
parklands; require land dedication and improvements for parks; designate sites in the
General Plan and Specific Plan areas; and implement Specific Plan policies for the
provision and maintenance of open space.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also identified park facilities as a fiscal impact (EM 3.4/L).
Implementation of the three mitigation measures (MM 3.4/29.0 - 31.0) reduce this impact
to a level of insignificance.
The adOpted mitigation measures and General Plan policies would continue to apply to
the entire project and the Specific Plan policies would continue to apply to the 472-acre
portion within the Specific Plan. There are no impacts beyond those analyzed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional review or analysis is necessary.
b)
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of
recreational facilities?
LS. The project includes neighborhood parks, open space and an addition to a planned
community park in accordance with the General Plan and Specific Plan. The Eastern
Dublin EIR identified the construction of park facilities and the cost of those facilities as
impacts (l/VI 3.4/k and 3.4/L) and, with implementation of the mitigation measures listed
above, these impacts are less-than-significant (please see a) above for a full discussion).
The adopted mitigation measures would continue to apply to the entire project. There are
no impacts beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and therefore no additional
review or analysis is necessary.
.- 53
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Environmental Setting
The project site is served by a number of regional freeways and sub-regional arterial and
collector roadways, including: Interstate 1-580, Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard,
Hacienda Drive, Arnold Road, Gleason Drive, Tassajara Road, Santa Rita Road and
Fallon Road. Development of the Project as proposed or modified would introduce new
arterial roadways and collector streets into the Project area. The Project is proposing a
minor change in the location of one collector street by removing it from a potentially
sensitive intermittent stream area. Other roadways are proposed in the General Plan
planning area which were not considered as part of the Eastern Dublin EIX (residential
collector streets which could occur in the General Plan planning area were not addressed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR).
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the traffic and transportation impacts of development
of the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified
impacts to a less than significant level. Due to increased urban development in the Tri-
Valley area and beyond which may impact roadways within the project area, there could
be the potential for additional transportation/traffic impacts.
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street
capacity?
PS. The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project area with the
proposed 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million square feet of commercial/industrial floor
space, and indicated mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. However,
changes in Th-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the
anticipated Project traffic, may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by
the Eastern Dublin EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project
area, or at Project intersection, or on fi'eeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize.
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the
County CMA for designated roads?
PS. As noted above, the addition of approximately 2,526 dwelling units and 1.4 million
square feet of commercial/industrial building area in the project area were anticipated and
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR but the impacts of development on regional fi'eeways
and local roadways in conjunction with changing commute patterns and traffic intensities
unrelated to the project may cause potentially, significant impacts not anticipated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
54
c) Change in air traffic patterns?
NI. The Livermore Airport is located to the south of the project .Area. The Airport Land
Use Commission of Alameda County has established land use policies for areas within
the Airport Protection Area and the General Referral and Height Referral area of the
airport. Development of the project area is subject to the policies of the ALUC.
Development of the project area is not expected to create a change in air traffic patterns at
the airport and hence would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use?
PS. Approval of the proposed project and future development of the site would add new
roads, driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none
currently exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated and addreSsed these potential
impacts and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in
Tri-Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project
traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. These impacts could include traffic impacts within the project area, or at project
intersection, or on freeways, roads, etc. which the project may utilize, such that traffic-
related hazards to pedestrians or bicyclists using the new roads and other circulation
features could increase.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
PS. The present need for emergency access is low, since there are few current residents
or visitors to the site. Construction of new residences and commercial development
within the project area could increase the need for emergency services and related access
to new residences and commercial establishments. The Eastern Dublin EIR anticipated
and suggested mitigation measures to reduce such impacts. However, changes in Tri-
Valley commute patterns and traffic intensities in addition to the anticipated project
traffic may cause potentially significant impacts not anticipated by the Eastern Dublin
EIR. For example, potential increased volumes of traffic unrelated to the project may
create a potentially significant impact on emergency access capability on project streets or
intersections during peak traffic hours.
f) Inadequate parking capacity?
NI. Parking for individual Projects within the project area would be reviewed by the City
of Dublin at the time such proposals are submitted to ensure consistency with City
parking requirements, No impact is anticipated.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs for alternative transportation?
NI. Individual projects within the subject site will be designed with sidewalks, pedestrian
walkways and bicycle routes to minimize potential hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists
and to support these alternative transportation modes. In accordance with the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan, bicycle routes and pedestrian trails are included as part of the
55
proposed Project. The City and Eastem Dublin Specific Plan-have standards by which
bus turn-outs, bicycle paths, trails and sidewalks must be planned and constructed. Bus
turn-outs are required to be installed by project develOPers in accordance with City
requirements and bus service plans. These improvements will be confirmed at the time
each individual development project is reviewed by the City.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Setting
The project area currently is served by the Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7
as a regional water supplier and distributor and for storm drain facilities. The Dubli. n San
Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would serve the project area as the water retailer;
would provide wastewater collection and treatment; and would provide opportunities for
the use of recycled water for landscape purposes. Since the project area is mainly
undeveloped except for nine residences and scattered outbuildings, current services to the
Project area are minimal.
Upon annexation of the project area to the City of Dublin, project developers would be
required to extend new services to the area to provide a public water supply for domestic
and fire flow use, a recycled water service for irrigation of public medians and parks, and
a public wastewater treatment system, all of which would connect with existing facilities
maintained and controlled by DSRSD. Project developers would be required to install
new storm drainage facilities which would connect with existing facilities maintained and
controlled by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone
7. Although most of these infrastructure facilities would be installed by Project
developers, all of these systems would be public and would be maintained by public
agencies such as the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. Cable
TV utilities also would be extended to the project area.
Gas and Electrici _ty (current setting)
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas to the
project site. Existing service to the project area includes minor low voltage distribution
feeders at 21 kilovolts (kV) and service within the project vicinity is provide by PG&E
distribution lines along Fallon, Croak, and Collier Canyon roads. There are no
transmission lines within the project area. A natural gas main is proposed to be extended
along Dublin Boulevard eastward fi.om its current terminus to within 2,812 feet of the
Project Site when PG&E and Pacific Bell install a joint trench in Dublin Ranch Area G in
late 2001 or early 2002.
Currently, California is experiencing an energy shortfall. PG&E declared bankruptcy in
April, 2001; it is unknown if this will have any effect on the company's ability to
continue to provide service.
56
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the provision and extension of services and utilities to
the project area and mitigation measures were adopted to reduce some of the identified
impacts to a less than significant level. However, additional or new potential impacts
may be potentially significant for the Project area due to changed circumstances
(increased urban development in the Th-Valley area, changes in water purveyor and
distributor contracts, changes in the handling and disposal of wastewater, changes in
supply and distribution of gas and electricity, etc.)
a) Exceed waste'water treatment requirements of the R WQCB?
PS. Changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding mechanisms and
timing of infrastructure improvements may create apotentially significant impact.
b)
Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities?
PS. As noted above, changes in circumstances due to regional policy changes, funding
mechanisms and timing of wastewater infrastructure improvements may create a
potentially significant impact.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities?
PS. New faCilities will be needed as a result of development and may exceed those
previously analyzed. This may be apotentially significant impact.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?
PS. DSRSD, which would provide water service and supply to project area has included
the project within its master plans and projections. However, water supplier contracts
and recent litigation may have an impact on how, when and how much water is supplied
to the project. This may be apotentially significant impact.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?
PS. Approval of the proposed project and development of the site could result in an
increased demand for wastewater treatment over present conditions. Due to increased
and more rapid development in the Th-Valley area there may be a potential need to
expand the capacity of the treatment plant earlier than originally anticipated by the
Eastern Dublin EIR. This could be apotentially significant impact.
f) Solid waste disposal?
PS. DeveloPment of the project as proposed could incrementally increase the generation
of solid waste. Although this 'impact was addressed in the Eas.tem Dublin EIR, changed
circumstances due to more rapid development in the Th-Valley area in combination with
57
the anticipated project could have a potentially significant impact on the availability of
solid waste disposal services.
g)
Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
NI. The City of Dublin and the solid waste hauler would ensure that developers of
individual projects constructed in the Project area would adhere to federal, state and local
solid, waste regulations; therefore, no impact would result.
h) Gas and electricity?
PS. Prior to the current state-wide energy crisis, PG&E had the ability to adequately
serve the Th-Valley with existing facilities until approximately June 2002. PG&E has
proposed the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Project to increase electric service by adding
substations in Dublin and North Livermore, expanding the Vineyard Substation in
Pleas~ton and installing approximately 23.5 miles of 230 kilovolt (kV) transmissi'on
lines to serve the substations (CPUC, 2000). PG&E is proposing construction of a 5-acre,
230/21 kV substation with four 45 megawatt transformers in bastem Dublin. If the Th-
Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or a functional equivalent project is not
constructed, PG&E would be forced to respond to growing demand by expanding its
existing system to the extent that is possible and by curtailing service if growth in demand
exceeds the transmission system's capacity or reliability requirements for essential
services (such as hospitals). It is possible that if the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase
Project is delayed, then other alternatives would be identified.
However, given that PG&E has declared bankruptcy and the that there is an apparent
energy provision shortfall within the state and from out-of-state providers, it is unclear
Whether PG&E would or could pursue the Th-Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project or,
even if approved and constructed, whether there would be energy available to supply the
new facilities.
The impacts of the project on the consumption of non-renewable resources is identified in.
the Eastern Dublin EIR (IM 3.4/S) and mitigation measures (MM 3.4/45.0 - 3:4/46.0) are
adopted as part of the project in an effort to reduce natural resource consumption and
encourage energy conservation, the impact was determined to be unavoidable and
adverse. Pursuant to CEQA, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by
the City Council for this impact. However, the current uncertainty of the supply of
energy to the state as a whole, the potential bankruptcy of the electricity and gas service
provider, and the potential lack of new energy-providers/power facilities may have a
potentially significant impact.
XV. 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
58
b)
c)
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
YES. Please refer to the discussion in the Biological Resources section above
(Section IV) regarding changes regulatory circumstances and the adoption of the
critical habitat for the California red-legged frog..
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 possible future projects.)
YES. The project constitutes about 25 percent of the overall Eastern Dublin
planning area. Other parts of this area have bee. n or are being developed in
accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Although the Eastern Dublin
EIR addressed the cumulative impacts of development of the Project area within
its evaluation of the overall Eastern Dublin planning area, changed circumstances
mentioned throughout this Initial Study may contribute to changed cumulative
impacts which should be further analyzed.
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
YES. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the potentially significant adverse
impacts of the proposed Project through its evaluation of the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment. The Eastern Dublin EIR
suggested mitigation measures which reduce many such impacts to a less-than
significant level and where such impacts could not be reduced or otherwise had a
cumulative adverse impact, the City Council adopted a Statement of Over-riding
Consideration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
As discussed previously in this document, however, changes in circumstances
since the Eastem Dublin EIR was certified have the potential for significant
effects beyond those analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Initial Study Preparer
Anne Kinney, Associate Planner, City of Dublin
References
Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental
Impact Report, Wallace Roberts and Todd, 1994.
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, June 6, 1998
City of Dublin General Plan, revised July 7, 1998
Projections 2000, Association of Bay Area Governments, December 1999
Persons/Agencies Contacted in Preparation of this Document
Grassetti Environmental Consulting
City of Dublin, Public Works Department
City of Dublin, Planning Department
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7
MacKay and Somps
60