No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 14-16 Wallis Ranch rec to CC CEQA Addendum RESOLUTION NO. 14-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE WALLIS RANCH PROJECT PLPA 2013-00035 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Trumark Homes LLC, has submitted a Planning Application to develop up to 806 dwellings on 88.5 acres of an approximately 184-acre site. The remaining area of the site would include parks, open space and other improvements. The project proposes a Planned Development rezoning with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Master Vesting Tentative Map 7515, and eight Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Maps 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714, 7715, 7716, 8169, and 8170. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site contains one residence, several outbuildings, and a historic school building that was moved onto the site. The site is located east of Camp Parks, west of Tassajara Road and south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County boundary. The site is broad in its northern area and narrows considerably towards the south. Tassajara Creek passes along the easterly property boundary and is covered by a conservation easement known as the Tassajara Creek Management Zone. In the northern area, several other smaller properties are located between the site and Tassajara Road; the middle and southern parts of the property are adjacent to the road; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Project and/or Project site has been addressed in three prior CEQA reviews: The Eastern Dublin EIR, a 2005 Supplemental EIR prepared for the Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) annexation, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the expansion of the project onto adjacent property, all of which reviews are further described in the draft City Council resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, based on the prior CEQA reviews and a related Initial Study, the City prepared a CEQA Addendum, concluding and documenting that potential environmental effects of the Project are adequately addressed in the prior CEQA reviews, as further described in attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Wallis Ranch project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated April 29, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Wallis Ranch project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and Page 1 of 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIRs and MND and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before making a recommendation on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin recommends that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Wallis Ranch project. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of April, 2014 by the following vote: AYES: Bhuthimethee, Do, Goel, Kohli NOES: ABSENT: O'Keefe ABSTAIN: Plan ing Commission hairperson ATT 7 Assistan orb nity Development Director 2266440.1 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE WALLIS RANCH PROJECT AND A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PLPA 2013-00035 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Trumark Homes LLC, has submitted a Planning Application to develop up to 806 dwellings on 88.5 acres of an approximately 184-acre site. The remaining area of the site would include parks, open space and other improvements. The project proposes a Planned Development rezoning with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, Master Vesting Tentative Map 7515, and eight Neighborhood Vesting Tentative Maps 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714, 7715, 7716, 8169, and 8170. The applications are collectively referred to herein as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the Project site contains one residence, several outbuildings, and a historic school building that was moved onto the site. The site is located east of Camp Parks, west of Tassajara Road and south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County boundary. The site is broad in its northern area and narrows considerably towards the south. Tassajara Creek passes along the easterly property boundary and is covered by a conservation easement known as the Tassajara Creek Management Zone. In the northern area, several other smaller properties are located between the site and Tassajara Road; the middle and southern parts of the property are adjacent to the road; and WHEREAS, the 806 dwellings would include 92 units of Low Density Residential, 529 units of Medium Density Residential, and 185 units of Medium High Density Residential. The residential neighborhoods would be located in the westerly, generally flatter areas west of Tassajara Creek, where the property is broadest; and WHEREAS, the non-residential uses include approximately 83.3 acres designated for Open Space, 10.4 acres designated Neighborhood Park, and 1.3 acres designated Semi-Public (for which no specific use is proposed). The non-residential areas are generally located along Tassajara Creek, in the steeper areas along the southwestern border of the site, and in the southerly, narrower areas of the site; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the City Council certified a Program Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May 10, 1993, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring Page I of 4 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference); and WHEREAS, in 2005, a Supplemental EIR ("SEIR", SCH #2003022083) was prepared for the Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) annexation to identify potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the 1993 EIR. The SEIR identified additional significant unavoidable impacts for air quality and traffic. The City Council certified the SEIR (Resolution 42-05, dated March 15, 2005 and incorporated herein by reference) and adopted a related Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, in 2007, an 11.6 acre parcel was added to the project to provide room for offsite grading and an emergency vehicle access. The added parcel is north of the Project site, in Contra Costa County and is owned by the Wallis Ranch owners. The City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the expansion area through Resolution 18-07 on February 20, 2007, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference. The current Project proposes no change to the adjacent 11.6 acre parcel; and WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area and the Project site, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore, approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the proposed Project was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated April 29, 2014 describing the Wallis Ranch project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIRs and MND. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2014, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on the Wallis Ranch project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated April 29, 2014 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Wallis Ranch project and related Addendum for the Planning Commission and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 14-XX recommending that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum for the Wallis Ranch project, which resolution is incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated 2014 and incorporated herein by reference described and analyzed the Wallis Ranch project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, on , 2014 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the Project at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and 2 of 4 WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIRs and MND and all above-referenced reports, recommendations, and testimony before taking any action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Wallis Ranch project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior CEQA documents, the City Council staff report, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, the prior CEQA documents, and elsewhere in the record. Other facts and information in the record that support each finding that are not included below are incorporated herein by reference: 1. The proposed Project does not constitute substantial changes to the previous projects affecting the Project site as addressed in the prior CEQA documents, that will require major revisions to the prior documents due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for project which were previously addressed. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior CEQA documents. All previously adopted mitigation measures from the Eastern Dublin EIR and the SEIR continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. In addition, all of the MND mitigations continue to apply to the 11.6-acre expansion area. 2. The Addendum and its related Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the prior CEQA documents. 3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin finds the following: 1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met. 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or Supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project. 3. The City Council considered the information in the Addendum and prior CEQA documents before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. 3 of 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibit A (and incorporated herein by reference), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Wallis Ranch project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 2264070.1 4 of 4 EXHIBIT A CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE WALLIS RANCH PROJECT PLPA-2013-00035 April 22, 2014 On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum to the Eastern Dublin EIR dated May 4, 1993, assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30 year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed, relying to various degrees on the certified EIR. A Supplement was prepared to the Eastern Dublin EIR in 2005 (State Clearinghouse # 2003022082) for an annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District and prezoning of the site. The 2005 Supplemental EIR provided updated analyses of agricultural resources, biology, air quality, land use, population and housing, traffic and circulation, schools, parks and recreation and utilities and services. In certifying the 2005 SEIR and approving the prezoning, the City Council, through Resolution No. 42-05, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project and the cumulative air quality impacts. In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to analyze improvements within approximately 11.6 acres of land located immediately north of the Wallis Ranch property that was the subject of the 2005 SEIR. This property is under the same ownership as Wallis Ranch, but located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County rather than within Dublin and Alameda County. The applicant proposed placement of an Emergency Vehicle Assess (EVA), a herpetological barrier and a bioswale within this area. The MND was adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 18-07 on February 20, 2007. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Project, as described below. Project Description The current application includes applications for a Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to change the number of dwellings units on this 184.1-acre site. The proposed Development Plan includes construction of up to 809 dwellings at various densities and product types rather than up to 935 dwellings allowed under existing City approvals, primary and internal roadways, two neighborhood parks, a private park, permanent open spaces, public and semi-public uses and other related improvements. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations As summarized above and discussed in more detail in the attached Initial Study, the Wallis Ranch property has been planned for urbanization since the Eastern Dublin approvals in 1993, 2005 and 2007, and has been the subject of two previously certified EIRs and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified numerous environmental impacts, and numerous mitigations were adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Similarly, the 2005 SEIR identified supplemental impacts and mitigation measures, as well as additional significant unavoidable impacts for which statements of overriding considerations were adopted. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of Eastern Dublin identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project as further discussed in the attached Initial Study. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the Project, which proposes minor changes to the Planned Development zoning. If approved, the proposed project would reduce the number of dwellings allowed on the site from up to 935 to up to 809 dwellings. The applicant is also seeking City approval of a Planned Development Rezone with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review permit, a vesting subdivision map and potentially an amendment to an existing Development Agreement. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated April 22, 2014, incorporated herein by reference, to assess whether any further environmental review is required for this Project. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration is required for the plan and zoning amendments or the refined development details. No Subsequent Review is required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis: Page 2 a) Are there substantial changes to the Project involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, as supplemented by the 2005 SEIR and 2007 MND. The Project is similar to land uses for the project site analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. As demonstrated in the Initial Study, the proposed land uses on the site is not a substantial change to either the 2005 SEIR analysis or the 2007 MND analysis and will not result in additional significant impacts, and no additional or different mitigation measures are required. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR or the 2007 MND. This is documented in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated April 22, 2014. c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? As documented in the attached Initial Study, there is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Similarly, the Initial Study documents that no new or different mitigation measures are required for the Project. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. The CEQA documents adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the proposed development on portions of the Wallis Ranch property. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and previous CEQA documents for the site, as documented in the attached Initial Study. Conclusion This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study dated April 12, 2014. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed the Planned Development rezoning amendment, Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Development Agreement amendment as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. The City further determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR and the 2007 MND adequately address the potential environmental impacts of the Page 3 land use designation change for the Wallis Ranch site as documented in the attached Initial Study. As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2005 SEIR, the 2007 MND and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. Page 4 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of Eastern Dublin through approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan project. The City Council is currently considering the Wallis Ranch project. The project proposes a residential development on the west side of Tassajara Road, generally south of the county line. The City prepared a Supplemental EIR in 2005 for the Dublin Ranch West project, which was similar to the current project but with more dwellings. The 2005 Supplemental EIR identified supplemental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant. The Supplemental EIR also identified supplemental Air Quality and Traffic impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for urbanization of Eastern Dublin and again with approval of the 2005 and 2007 projects. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the Wallis Ranch project.1 The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 Supplemental EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the original Eastern Dublin approvals and by the environmental protection measures adopted through the 2005 Dublin Ranch West approvals, to be implemented with the development of the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 Supplemental EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified In the Eastern Dublin EIR for future development of Eastern Dublin apply to the Wallis Ranch project. "...public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v California Resources Agency 103 Cal.App. 4th 98, _(2002). 1 Land Use Impact 3.11F. Cumulative Loss of Agricultural and Open Space Lands; Visual Impacts 3.8/13; and, Alteration of Rural/Open Space Character. Although development has occurred south of the project area, the site is largely undeveloped open space land. Future development of the Wallis Ranch site will contribute to the cumulative loss of open space land. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.318, 3.31E. 1-580 Freeway, Cumulative Freeway Impacts: While city street and interchange impacts can be mitigated through planned improvements, transportation demand management, the 1-580 Smart Corridor program and other similar measures, mainline freeway impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Future development on the Wallis Ranch site will generate less traffic than anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but will still incrementally contribute to the unavoidable freeway impacts. Traffic and Circulation Impacts 3.311, 3.31M. Santa Rita Road/1-580 Ramps, Cumulative Dublin Boulevard Impacts: The Wallis Ranch project will be required to implement all applicable adopted traffic mitigation measures, including contributions to the City's TIF program; however even with mitigation these impacts continue to be identified as unavoidable, as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Community Services and Facilities Impact 3.41S. Consumption of Non- Renewable Natural Resources and Sewer, Water; and Storm Drainage Impact 3.51F, H, U. Increases in Energy Usage Through Increased Water Treatment, Disposal and Operation of Water Distribution System: Future development of the Wallis Ranch project will contribute to increased energy consumption. Soils, Geology, and Seismicity Impact 3.61B. Earthquake Ground Shaking, Primary Effects: Even with seismic design, future development of the Wallis Ranch project could be subject to damage from large earthquakes, much like the rest of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Air Quality Impacts 3.111A, B, C, and E. Future development of the Wallis Ranch project will contribute to cumulative dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile and stationary source emissions. 3. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR. The following unavoidable significant supplemental environmental impacts identified in the 2005 Supplemental EIR for the Dublin Ranch West project apply to the Wallis Ranch project. Supplemental Impacts AQ-2, AQ-3. Project emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors on project and cumulative levels. Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures and the additional mitigation measures in the Supplemental EIR, project and cumulative precursor emissions will exceed BAAQMD thresholds. 2 Supplemental Impact TRA-2. Impacts to study intersections under Buildout conditions (Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road). Even with implementation of the previously adopted mitigation measures, including contribution to intersection improvements through the TIF program, the project will contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts at this intersection under buildout conditions. 4. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Eastern Dublin 2005 and 2007 project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 Supplemental EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the Wallis Ranch site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Wallis Ranch project as further set forth below. The project will further the urbanization of Eastern Dublin as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Eastern Dublin approvals. Prior approvals provided important protections to Tassajara Creek and through reasonable and protective designations for sensitive creek areas; the Wallis Ranch project will implement these protections through previously adopted mitigation measures and current development standards. The project will provide approximately 806 units of needed housing with diverse densities and building types, as well as maintaining open space and the potential for semi- public uses on the site. Development of the site will also provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 2266460.1 3 Wallis Ranch/ Trumark Project PLPA 2013-00035 INITIAL STUDY Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner April 22,2014 Table of Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................2 Applicant........................................................................................................................4 Project Location and Context ......................................................................................4 Prior Environmental Review Documents..................................................................4 ProjectDescription........................................................................................................7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................17 Determination................................................................................................................17 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .......................................................................19 Attachmentto Initial Study .........................................................................................32 1. Aesthetics ...............................................................................................32 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................35 3. Air Quality .............................................................................................37 4. Biological Resources .............................................................................40 5. Cultural Resources................................................................................46 6. Geology and Soils .................................................................................48 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................53 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................53 9. Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................55 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................58 11. Mineral Resources.................................................................................59 12. Noise .......................................................................................................60 13. Population and Housing......................................................................62 14. Public Services.......................................................................................63 15. Recreation...............................................................................................65 16. Transportation/Traffic.........................................................................66 17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................70 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................72 InitialStudy Preparers .................................................................................................73 Agencies and Organizations Consulted ....................................................................73 References ......................................................................................................................74 Attachment 1-Trip Generation Analysis....................................................................75 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. Because the proposed project is generally based on the land use designations, circulation patterns etc. assigned to the project by the City of Dublin General Plan, the Initial Study relies on a Program EIR certified by the City in 1993 for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (the "Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 91103064). That EIR, also known in this Initial Study as the "Eastern Dublin EIR," evaluated the following impacts: Land Use, Population, Employment and Housing, Traffic and Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage, Soils, Geology and Seismicity, Biological Resources, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Air Quality and Fiscal Considerations. Even with mitigation, however, some of the identified significant impacts could not be reduced to a less than significant level. Several of these impacts were cumulative level impacts, such as loss of agriculture and open space, I-580 and other regional traffic impacts, and air quality impacts. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR identified project alternatives, including No Project and No Development alternatives, a Reduced Land Use Intensities alternative, and a Reduced Planning Area alternative, and analyzed whether the alternatives would avoid any of the otherwise unavoidable impacts. As further discussed below, the City Council adopted a modified version of the Reduced Planning Area alternative after certifying the EIR as adequate and in compliance with CEQA on May 10, 1993. (Resolution 51-93.) The City Council also certified an Addendum dated May 4, 1993 which assessed the modifications to the Reduced Planning Area alternative and concluded that this alternative "will have no environmental impacts not addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan." (May 4, 1993 Addendum, p. 1.) The Addendum further concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 or 15163 for approval of the modified alternative. A second Addendum was later prepared, dated August 22, 1994. The second Addendum updated plans for providing sewer services to Eastern Dublin. The May 10, 1993 certified EIR, the May 4, 1993 Addendum and the August 22, 1994 Addendum are collectively referred to hereafter as the Eastern Dublin EIR, or the "EDEIR" and are incorporated herein by reference into this Initial Study. These documents are available City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. In 2005, a Supplemental EIR to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for the Dublin Ranch West project, also known as the Wallis Ranch, as well as other smaller properties adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West site. This document will be referred to as the "2005 SEIR." The Dublin Ranch West SEIR was certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005, by City Council Resolution No. 42-05. This CEQA document analyzed annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the SEIR, the City of Dublin subsequently approved a PD rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan for the Wallis site, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit, a vesting tentative subdivision map and a Development Agreement. This Supplemental EIR analyzed future development of up to 1,034 dwellings at a variety of densities (see SEIR Table 2). The Dublin Ranch West has since been annexed into the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District. The 2005 SEIR analyzed agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources land use, population, housing and employment, transportation and circulation and parks and recreation. In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to analyze improvements within approximately 11.6 acres of land located immediately of the Wallis Ranch property that was the subject of the 2005 SEIR. This property is under the same ownership as the Wallis Ranch, but is located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County rather than within Dublin and Alameda County. The applicant proposed placement of an Emergency Vehicle Assess (EVA), a herpetological barrier and a bioswale within this area. The MND was adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 18-07 on February 20, 2007. The proposed improvements were not constructed and this 11.6-acre property is not part of the current development application. The subject of this Initial Study includes applications for a PD rezoning with amended Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, A Site Development Review (SDR) permit, and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to change the number of dwellings units on this 184.1-acre site. The proposed Development Plan includes construction of up to 809 dwellings at various densities and product types, primary and internal roadways, two neighborhood parks, a private park, permanent open spaces, public and semi-public uses and other related improvements. City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Applicant: Trumark Homes 4165 Blackhawk Plaza Circle, Suite 200 Danville CA 94506 Attn: Christopher Davenport (925) 309 2503 Project Location and Context The project area consists of 184.1 acres of land located in northern portion of Dublin generally bounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa line to the north, Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (Parks RFTA) to the west, Tassajara Road to the east and the Tassajara Creek to the south. The Assessors Parcel Number for the site is 986-0004-05. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin and Exhibit 2 shows the location of the project site in context with nearby features, including nearby roadways and adjacent creek. The project site is fallow, with one inhabited residence (in the process of being vacated), outbuildings and a historic school building adjacent to Tassajara Road. The easterly portion of the site area includes Tassajara Creek, a major regional drainage facility. Land uses surrounding the site include Parks RFTA to the west and along the southerly boundary of the site. East of the project area is Tassajara Creek(which has been placed in a conservation easement known as the Tassajara Creek Management Zone) and Tassajara Road. A portion of the Silvera Ranch residential development is located directly across Tassajara Road. Additionally, Quarry Lane School, a private K-12 education facility has been constructed east of the project. A residential project, Nielsen Ranch, is also east of the project and has been approved for development of 36 residential lots but is as yet not constructed. A portion of Tassajara Creek forms the sites southern boundary. An equestrian center, an East Bay Regional Park District staging area and rural residential uses are also found south of the site. Prior Environmental Review Documents The project has been included in the following previous CEQA documents, as noted below: Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #91103064). A Program Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (Eastern Extended Planning Area) and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) was certified by the City Council in 1993 by Resolution No. 51-93. This document and its related Addenda collectively are referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." It evaluated the following impacts: City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage; Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. The City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-93) for the following impacts: Cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population, earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate. Two Addenda documents to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR have been approved by the City, as described earlier. Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR (SCH #200322082). In 2005, a Supplemental EIR to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for the Dublin Ranch West project, also known as the Wallis Ranch, as well as other smaller properties adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West site. The Dublin Ranch West SEIR was certified by the City Council on March 15, 2005, by City Council Resolution No. 42-05. This CEQA document analyzed annexation of the property to the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), amendments to the Dublin General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, a Planned Development prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan. Following certification of the SEIR, the City of Dublin subsequently approved a PD rezoning with related Stage 2 Development Plan for the site, a Site Development Review (SDR) permit, a vesting tentative subdivision map and a Development Agreement. The SEIR analyzed traffic and transportation and other impacts of constructing 1,034 dwellings on the site, although the City ultimately approved 935 dwellings. This SEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to project exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District air quality standards on a project and cumulative level. 2007 MND. In 2007, the City of Dublin approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to analyze improvements within approximately 11.6 acres of land located immediately of the Wallis Ranch property that was the subject of the 2005 SEIR. This property is under the same ownership as the Wallis Ranch, but is located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County rather than within Dublin and Alameda County. The analyzed the proposed placement of an Emergency Vehicle City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Wallis Ranchrfrumark Project April 2014 Assess (EVA), a herpetological barrier and a bioswale within this area. The MND was adopted by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 18-07 on February 20, 2007. Proposed land use approvals included an amended Stage 1 Development Plan for Dublin Ranch West as well as a Vesting Master and Tentative Maps, Site Development Review and Development Agreement. The proposed improvements were not constructed and this 11.6-acre property is not part of the current development application. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Project Description Overview. The proposed project includes amending existing land use entitlements granted by the City of Dublin and developing up to 809 dwellings at various densities and product types on the site as well as parks, open spaces, public/semi-public uses and infrastructure improvements. If approved, there would be a reduction of approximately 126 dwellings from existing City of Dublin approvals on the site. The existing residence and associated outbuildings are proposed to be demolished. The historic school building would be reconstructed on the site using historic building material supplemented by other materials to replicate historic structures. The existing Development Agreement between the City and the property owner requires the owner to relocate the historic Antone School on the site. If the structure is damaged during relocation, the owner is required to construct a similar structure as approved by the City of Dublin Community Development Director. The applicant has requested approvals of the following in order to implement the project: a Stage 2 Development Plan, a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit and a Vesting Tentative Map. The existing Development Agreement may be amended as part of this project, or a new Development Agreement negotiated between the applicant and City of Dublin. Approved Development Plan. The approved development plan for the site is shown on Exhibit 3. The development plan was based on Alternative 3 contained in the 2005 SEIR which moved the Neighborhood Park to border Tassajara Road. The Development Plan approved by the City in 2005 and modified in 2007 allows the construction of up to 935 dwellings including a combination of Low Density Residential dwellings, Medium Density Residential dwellings and Medium-High Density Residential dwellings. Medium and Medium-High Density dwellings would be constructed in the approximate center of the site, with the Low Density Residential dwellings located in the northwest portion. A Neighborhood Park would be located in the southern portion of the site with a 1.9-acre Semi Public use located in the southern portion of the site adjacent to Tassajara Road. The eastern portion of the site adjacent to Tassajara Creek is retained as permanent Open Space through previous recordation of a permanent non-build easement. Access into the site is provided by two existing roadways from Tasssjara Road with associated bridges over Tassajara Creek into the site. The on-site main roadway is to be extended in a northwesterly direction to provide access to individual neighborhoods on the site. The second access is provided into the site from Tassajara Road with a bridge crossing Tassajara Creek south of the main drive. Both bridges over Tassajara Creek have been constructed in accordance with approved plans and all required local, state and federal agency permits. Proposed Development Plan. The proposed Development Plan would be similar to the approved plan, with the proposed changes listed below, including build-out of fewer City of Dublin Page 7 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 dwellings. The area of development and ground disturbance on the site would be the same as established in the approved development plan. • The total number of dwellings would be reduced from 935 to up to 809. See Table 1,below. • In addition a public Neighborhood Park included in the approved plan, bisected by the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area, a 3.0 gross acre private park would be provided in the approximate center of the site. • The main interior roadway would be located in a more westerly location than shown in the approved plan Proposed public Neighborhood Parks, Open Space areas and the Public/Semi-Public area would remain the same as the approved plan and would contain approximately the same acreage as approved. Exhibit 4 shows the proposed development plan for this project. Table 1 compares approved and proposed land uses on the project site. Table 1. Approved v. Proposed Development Plans Land Use Type Approved Development Proposed Develo ment Gross Acres Dwellings Gross Acres Dwellings Low Density Res. 15.4 58 15.4 92 Medium Density 57.1 629 57.1 531 Res. Med.High Density 13.1 248 13.1 186 Res. Water Quality 2.9 -- 2.9 -- Basin Neighborhood 10.4 -- 10.4 -- Park Open Space 83.3 -- Semi Public 1.9 -- 1.9 -- Total 184.1 935 184.1 1 809 Source: Project Applicant, 2013 Note:the 2005 SEIR analyzed development up to 1,034 dwellings on the site. Circulation and access. Vehicular access to and from the site is currently provided from Tassajara Road via two roadways. Both roads traverse Tassajara Creek via existing bridges that would extend into the interior of the site and provide access to all of the neighborhoods. Smaller private roadways would be constructed off of the main road for access into each neighborhood and private in-tract streets would provide access to individual dwellings. Road widths would vary from 74 feet for the main project access road to 34.5 feet for roads within neighborhoods. Sidewalks or walkways would be provided on one or both sides of all streets. City of Dublin Page 8 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 A 6-ft. wide concrete sidewalk would be constructed along the project frontage on the western side of Tassajara Road. The sidewalk would also serve as a portion of a regional recreation trail. This would be consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. Additionally, an on-site and at-grade trail would be constructed extending from the southwesterly edge of the site and adjacent to the western edge of Tassajara Creek would link the East Bay Regional Park District trail to Contra Costa County to the north. Building architecture and design. Future dwellings that would be constructed on the project site would include single-family detached dwellings (up to 622 dwellings), townhouses (up to 126 dwellings) and three-plex attached dwellings (up to 61 dwellings). Future dwellings would generally be of two-and three-story construction and would reflect a rural/agrarian design theme. Exterior building materials would consist of stucco, board and batten siding or lap siding. Roof material would consist of composition shingle or concrete tile. A variety of window and door treatments would be designed and each dwelling would have accent material to present an aesthetically pleasing appearance. A number of floor plans and sizes would be constructed. Dwelling unit sizes would range from approximately 1,960 to 4,158 square feet each. Each dwelling would include vehicle parking in the form of enclosed garages or open parking that would meet City of Dublin parking requirements. Landscaping. The applicant proposes a comprehensive landscape plan for the project. Landscaping would including planting of street trees along all project roadways, public and private parks and open space slope areas. An enhanced entryway would be provided at the main project road along Tassajara Road. The entry area would consist of project identification sign, monumentation and enriched landscaping. Utility services. Domestic water, recycled water and sewer service would be provided by Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The project developer would be required to install mainline extension of sewer along the frontage, to the entrance of the project, as well as the in-tract water and sewer lines and laterals. Surface water quality improvements would include a central water quality/hydromodification pond in the south-central portion of the site. Bio-swales to filter stormwater runoff would also be installed adjacent to most of the streets in the project. Grading. The applicant proposes to grade the site to allow construction of the residential areas, roadways, parks and related improvements. Generally, the site would be re-contoured from its present condition to provide a flatter development area in the central portion of the site. The existing open space areas on the west side of the project site would not be graded. A number of retaining walls are proposed on the site. It is City of Dublin Page 9 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 anticipated that cut and fill will balance on the site, which means no dirt would be imported into or exported from the site. Erosion controls would be implemented during grading activities pursuant to City and Regional Water Quality Board requirements, as enforced by the City of Dublin, to protect surface water quality. Inclusionary housing. The inclusionary housing requirement was met for Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Ranch) by the Fairway Ranch (The Groves) development and therefore, no further requirement is necessary. With the reduction of units with this application from 935 to approximately 809, the original requirement of 117 units would be reduced to 101 thereby potentially over-providing 16 inclusionary units. Historic resource: The Antone School building is located on the site. This building has been relocated to the project site from elsewhere on the larger Dublin Ranch site. The current Development Agreement for the property requires the developer to relocate this structure on the site and restore it. If the structure is damaged during relocation, the Development Agreement requires the developer to construct a replacement structure with the exterior design resembling the current building, as approved by the Dublin Community Development Department. Requested land use approvals. A number of land use approvals are required from the City of Dublin to construct the project as proposed. These are described in more detail below. PD Rezoning with Amended Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan. Previously approved Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plans and associated land use development standards would be replaced by the proposed Development Plan shown on Exhibit 4. Site Development Review (SD R). A Site Development Review permit has been requested to approve exterior building architecture, landscaping, walls and fences and related improvements. Vesting Tentative Map. The Vesting Tentative Tract Map is shown on Exhibit 5. Approval of the subdivision map would create a number of smaller building lots for individual dwellings, multi-family housing, parks, open space, roads and utilities. Development Agreement. A 15 year Development Agreement was approved or this property in 2009, and remains in force until 2024. In accordance with the provisions of the development Agreement, the property owner has the right to assign all or a portion of the Agreement to any potential purchaser of all or a portion of the site to the satisfaction of the City Manager. The current Development Agreement may be amended or a new Agreement negotiated. City of Dublin Page 10 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 $AN P A 8 L 0 4 Martinez q 8 A Y San e0 eeo Concord Rafael Richmond 580 Mill 101 Valley Walnut 24 Creek Berkeley 660 O Oakland q/d0 500 San Francisco eod S A N San Leandro DUBLIN FRANCISCO Sao seo Daly Livermore A City B A Y 101 Pleasanton Hayward N 92 280 N, San Mateo Fremont n 84 i Newark Redwood City Halt 84 Moon Bay Palo o co Alto 080 o � b 9 tot s � mo m 280 Sunnyvale Santa Clara K ' San 1 � Jose ion ttt m Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN WALLIS RANCH/TRUMARK PROJECT o 2 4 s s f0 miles INITIAL STUDY w w » Cm O .� O § Q | \ m . \ % uj W assalara© F / e $§ k \ % __e j v q /\ 2 �\ : . . \\ Arnold / 2 z ) °\ /) \ ! ® ! lJ , \ ! 0 \ § , \ Cr \ LLJ / , r \ \ , s © cc / ^ a ' x r CE ■ k 2m \ 3 2 z � �/ RCS * �° ■ f LL _jj al, E ^ s J x�� z W a qq s O g = J SH ^N�o�_ < q_ L il x > LLI if y y y Jl fA ��II a gg $ � V 3 1 -a \ eyy a � I B z z � «o �p 1 _q q,; i �r op IN LU cc y s r Q _ Y = a o CC J L+� . ed fcu 111�� Z CL 3 I CL cps^ Lu W en 3 cc CL M& E; Al 0 cr CL cc cc U- U) 6i U) 0 —j o at z 1. Project description: Constructing up to 809 dwellings at various densities and product types on the site, as well as two public and one private parks, open spaces, a public/semi- public site and roads. The proposed project would also include grading of the site to accommodate proposed uses and extension of utilities to and within the site. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact persons: Michael A. Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: Generally located on the west side of Tassajara Road and, south of the City limit line and east of Parks RFTA 5. Project sponsor: Christopher Davenport Trumark Homes 6. General Plan designation: Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Residential Open Space Public/Semi-Public 7. Zoning: PD-Planned Development 8. Other public agency required approvals: • Approval of PD-Planned Development zoning (City of Dublin); • Approval of a Stage 2 Development Plan (City of Dublin); • Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map (City of Dublin); • Approval of a Site Development Review (SDR) Permit; • Approval of Development Agreement (City of Dublin, possible); • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board); • Issuance of building and grading permits (City of Dublin); and • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. _ Aesthetics _ Agricultural - Air Quality Resources Biological _ Cultural Resources - Geology/Soils Resources _ Hazards and - Hydrology/Water _ Land Use/ Hazardous Quality Planning Materials Mineral Resources -- Noise -- Population/ Housing -- Public Services _ Recreation - Transportation Circulation -- Utilities/Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and the previous Negative Declaration certified for this project by the City of Dublin adequately addresses potential impacts. _I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be any new or substantially more severe significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in earlier CEQA documents pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier CEQA documents, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project, except for those impacts which were identified as significant and unavoidable and for which Statements of Overriding Considerations were previously adopted by the City. An Addendum to the Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, the 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, and 2007 MND will be prepared. _I find that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Wallis Ranchrfrumark Project April 2014 (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that P4f-(v are imposed on the proposed project. Signature: r s'�-� Date: (10' ! Printed Name: 1.&tw A• PtN-Ev For: City of Dublin Page 18 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). The checklist will include a response "no new impact" in these circumstances. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No New following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic X vista? (Source: 1,2,5) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including X but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1,2,5) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character X or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 5) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare X which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 1,2,5) 2.Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non- agricultural use?(Source: 1,2) b)Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, X or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to a non- X agricultural use? (Source: 1,2,5) 3.Air Quality (Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to snake the following determinations). Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,4) b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 2) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Wallis RanchfTrumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase X of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (2) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? (Source: 2,5) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? (Source: 6) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species X identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?(Source: 1,2,6) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 1,2.6) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally X protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including but not limited to marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: Source: 2,3,6) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any X native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2,5) e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources,such as tree protection ordinances?(Source: 2,6) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, X regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 6) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1,2) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 1,2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource,site or unique geologic feature?(Source: 1,2) d) Disturb any human remains,including those X interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2) 6.Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault(Source: 2, 3,6) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (2,6) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (2,6) iv) Landslides? (2,6) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil?(Source: 2,6) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- X or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2,6) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X (Source: 2,6) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mi ti Qation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available X for the disposal of wastewater?(Source: 1,2) 7.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials X (Source: 2,6) b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2,6) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, X substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?(Source: 2,6) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 and,as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 6) e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2,6) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2,6) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X (Source: 2,6) City of Dublin Page 24 Initial StudyMallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, X including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?(Source: 2,6) 8.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2,4 X b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer X volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?(1,2) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X. the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2,5,6) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of X the site or areas,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?(Source: 2,5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would X exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 4,5) f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X (Source: 4,5) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map?(Source: 4) City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood X flows?(Source: 4) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,and death involving flooding, X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? (5) X 9.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X (Source: 1,2,5) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including but not limited to the X general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Source: 1, 1,2) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X (2, 6) 10.Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the X region and the residents of the state?(Source: 1, 2) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan,specific plan X or other land use plan? (Source:1,2) 11.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise X levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?(2,3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise X levels? (Source: 2,6) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2,5) City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(2,5) e) For a project located within an airport land use X plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels?(2, 6) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private X airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2,6) 12.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, X either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 5) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement X housing elsewhere?(5) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of X housing elsewhere? (Source: 5) 13.Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2,4) Fire protection X Police protection X Schools X Parks X Other public facilities X Solid Waste X City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation 14.Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2,4) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 2,4.6) 15.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (2,3) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a X level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways?(2,3) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? (2,3) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses,such as farm X equipment? (4) e) Result in inadequate emergency access?(4) X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?(4) X g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (1,4) City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Miti-ation 16.Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (2, 4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water X or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2,4) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve X the project from existing water entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed?(4) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater X treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments?(4) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(4) g) Comply with federal,state and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? (4) 17.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade X the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Potentially Less Than Less than No New Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings,either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan EIR 2 2005 Dublin Ranch West SEIR 3 Trip Generation Analysis (TJKM) 4. Discussion with City staff or service provider 5. Site Visit 6. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the 1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 91103064), hereinafter referred to as the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR is a Program EIR which was prepared for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan of which this Project is a part. It was certified by the Dublin City Council on May 10, 1993. Following certification of the EIR, the Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for impacts including but not limited to: cumulative traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone service), regional air quality, noise and visual. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a large number of mitigation measures which apply to this Project and which would be applied to any development within the project area. Specific mitigation measures identified in the certified Eastern Dublin EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Wallis Ranchrfrumark Project April 2014 This Initial Study relies on 2005 Dublin Ranch West Supplemental EIR (State Clearinghouse #2003022082), certified by the Dublin City Council by Resolution No. 42- 05 on March 15, 2005. This Initial Study also relies on a Mitigated Negative Declaration for an 11.6-acre site located just north of the Wallis Ranch but included in the earlier City of Dublin approval for the site (State Clearinghouse #2003022082), certified by the Dublin City Council by Resolution No. XX-07 on February 20, 2007. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of the project which were not evaluated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The project is set in an a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin EIR, adopted in 1993. The existing natural topography includes consists of steep slopes in the western portion of the site adjacent to Parks RFTA transitioning to moderate to gentle slopes in the approximate center of the site. The portion of the site lying adjacent to Tassajara Creek is generally flat. The portion of the project site adjacent to Tassajara Creek is heavily wooded. This area is protected by an existing conservation easement and trees and other vegetation and would not be disturbed as part of this project. Tassajara Road from the I-580 freeway to the south, to the Alameda County-Contra Costa County line just north of the Dublin Ranch West site is classified as a Scenic Route in the Alameda County Scenic Route Element of the General Plan, which has also been adopted by the City of Dublin by reference in the City of Dublin General Plan. No existing parks, playgrounds, scenic vistas or other places for public gathering are found on the project site. As a largely rural area, minimal light sources exist on the project site. Regulatory fi,ainework Dublin General Plan. The project area is included in the Eastern Dublin Extended Planning Area. Implementing Policy C.2 of the General Plan states that "proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure ridgelands." Further, Implementing Policy C. 5 requires development projects to be consistent with all applicable General Plan and Specific Plan policies." Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City of Dublin adopted the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP) in 1993 to guide the future development of approximately 3,200 acres of land in the eastern Dublin area. The Specific Plan includes a number of policies and programs dealing with visual resources, including but not limited to protection of ridgelines and ridgelands, scenic corridors, and hillside development. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 • Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract development (IM 3.8/B) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and maintaining views from major travel corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8/B would remain significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 would reduce the impact of obscuring distinctive natural features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant natural features. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/4.0-4.5 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of hillsides (IM 3.8/D) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require implemtation of appropriate Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies including but not limited to use of sensitive grading design to minimize grading, use of existing topographic features, limiting use of flat pads for construction, using building designs that conform to natural land forms, recontouring hillside to resemble existing topography and minimizing the height of cut and fill slopes. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/5.0-5.2 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of ridges (IM 3.8/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures limit development on main ridges that border the Specific Plan area to the north and east but are allowed on foreground hills, and would limit development in locations where scenic views would be obscured or would extend above a ridgetop. • IM 3.8/F analyzed alteration of the visual character of the Eastern Dublin flatlands. No mitigation measures were identified and the impact was identified as significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measure 3.8/6.0 reduced the impact of altering the visual quality of watercourses (IM 3.8/G) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure protects Tassajara Creek and other stream courses from unnecessary alteration or disturbance, and adjoining development should be sited to maintain visual access to stream corridors. • Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds. 2005 SEIR. Aesthetics were addressed in the Initial Study for the SEIR. No potentially significant aesthetic impacts or mitigation measures were identified in this document. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to aesthetics set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a,b) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources,within a state scenic highway? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies that implementation of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact (Impact 3.8/I), in that development in the Eastern Dublin planning area will alter the character of existing scenic vistas and may obscure important sightlines. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant impact. This measure requires the City to preserve views of designated open space areas and to complete a visual assessment and guidelines for the Eastern Dublin area. There are no scenic vistas visible from public vantage points along Tassajara Road. The proposed project would include grading of the project site from its existing natural condition so that access roads, building pads, water quality improvements and related improvements. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified the potential for alteration of visual resources along scenic routes, including Tassajara Road (Impact 3.8/J). The same portion of the site would be disturbed for development as has been previously analyzed in the 2005 SEIR and approved by the City of Dublin. The heavily wooded areas of the Wallis site along Tassajara Creek are protected by a conservation easement. All of the mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the visual policies contained in the EDSP will apply to this project. There are no impacts beyond those in the prior review; no additional analysis is required. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site and its surroundings? No New Impact. The proposed project includes the consideration of a modified development plan for the Wallis Ranch project in Eastern Dublin. Aesthetic impacts would include disturbance of existing vegetation, Landform modification resulting from grading building pads and roads, and construction of a mix of housing units where none now exist. The Eastern Dublin EIR addressed the following potential impacts related to visual and aesthetics impacts of adopting the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan: Impact 3.8/B: Urban development of the project site will substantially alter the existing rural and open space qualities that characterize Eastern Dublin City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 The Eastern Dublin EIR identified one measure to mitigate this impact (Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0, "Implement the land use plan for the project site which emphasizes retention of predominant natural features..."). Both the approved and proposed development plans on the project site would adhere to this mitigation measure by preserving Tassajara Creek that provides a significant natural feature on and adjacent to the site. However the Eastern Dublin EIR concluded that even with adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.8/2, alteration of rural and open space in Eastern Dublin would remain a potentially significant impact. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan, if approved, would disturb the same amount of the site as the currently approved plan and has been analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. A large portion of the site, within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek, would remain undeveloped. No new or more severe impacts have been identified in this Initial Study and no further analysis is required. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. The project site contains minimal light sources and construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights along exterior and interior roadways as well as building and security lighting, as noted in the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR. City of Dublin development requirements will be imposed as standard conditions as part of the normal and customary review process to restrict spillover of unwanted light off of the project site. The amount of light and glare would be reduced compared to that assumed in the 2005 SEIR. No new or more significant impacts would result with respect to light and glare than has been previously analyzed in the previous CEQA documents and no additional analysis is required. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a description of agricultural resources on and around the project area at the time of EIR certification. Agricultural and grazing uses historically predominated within the project area and throughout the Eastern Dublin area. Urban development has commenced pursuant to the adopted EDSP on lands immediately east of the project site and agricultural uses, including cattle grazing have ceased on the project site. The Project site is currently fallow. There are no current Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreements on the property. The Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000) designates the project area as "Grazing Lands," with vegetation found on lands within this classification being suitable for grazing of livestock. No forests or major stands of trees exist on the site, although the Tassajara Creek corridor, located east of the site is heavily wooded. City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified several potential impacts related to agricultural resources. Impact IM 3.1/C stated that discontinuation of agricultural uses would be an insignificant impact due to on-going urbanization trends in Dublin and the Tri-Valley area. Impact 3.1/D identified a loss of lands of Farmlands of Local Importance with approval and implementation of the General Plan and Specific Plan. This was also noted as an insignificant impact. Impact 3.1/F stated that buildout of Specific Plan land uses would have a significant and unavoidable impact on cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands. Finally, Impact IM 3.1/E noted indirect impacts related to non-renewal of Williamson Act contracts. This impact was also identified as less-than-significant impact. 2005 SEIR. Agriculture resources were addressed in Chapter 4.1 of the SEIR. No additional significant impacts to agricultural resources were identified in this document. Project Impacts a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? No significant impacts were identified with respect to agricultural resources in previous CEQA documents listed above. The project proposes uses consistent with, but at a lesser intensity and density than assumed in prior reviews. No new conditions have been identified in this Initial Study with respect to conversion of prime farmland to a non-agricultural use and no new or more severe impacts would result than were analyzed in previous CEQA documents for this site. No additional analysis is required. Development of the project site would continue to contribute to cumulative loss of agricultural land and open space, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.1/F). b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No New Impact. The City of Dublin has previously zoned much of the project site for residential uses. No agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts presently exist on the site nor are any agricultural operations on-going. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the site. No additional analysis is required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. No forest land exists on the development portion of the project site and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? No Impact. See item "d," above. City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Livermore-Amador Valley. The Livermore-Amador Valley forms a small subregional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore-Amador Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared to the greater Bay Area. The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically. Inversions occur during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 907o of the time in both morning and afternoon. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, air pollution potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall (BAAQMD, 2005 SEIR, p. 38). High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally generated pollutants but also can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east. During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions, pollutants such as carbon monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and agricultural burning can become concentrated. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.11/1.0 reduced construction dust deposition impacts but not to a level of less than significant (Impact 3.11/A). MM 3.11/1.0 requires development projects to implement dust control measures. Even with these measures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11/B) but not to a less- than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on-site equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 with adherence to these mitigations, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emission from ROG and NOx (IM 3.11/C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures. Many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to adopted mitigations, IM 3.11/C would remain significant and unavoidable. • Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than- significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures, stationary source emissions would remain significant and unavoidable. 2005 SEIR. This document identified the following significant supplemental impacts and supplemental air quality mitigation measures. • Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-1 reduced impacts related to construction emission from construction activities (Supplemental Impact AQ-1) to a less-than- significant level. Specific items listed in this measure required contractors to cover stockpiles of debris, sweep paved access roads and parking areas and construction staging areas and install sandbags or equivalent to prevent silt runoff from construction areas. • Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 reduced Supplemental Impact AQ-2 but not to a less-than-significant level. Supplemental Impact AQ-2 noted that the project would result in a regional emission increase exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for emission of ozone precursors. Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 required the project proponent to coordinate with the regional public transit provider to extend service the site along with transit improvements, the project developer to provide bike paths and sidewalks, consider a local shuttle service to regional transit hubs and consider installing a telecommute center. Even with adherence to all of these features, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Supplemental Impact AQ-3 noted that project emissions of ozone would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for this pollutant. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-AQ-2 would partially but not fully reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable mitigation measures related to air quality. Project Impacts City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The amount of development proposed on the site would be less than previously considered and approved by the City of Dublin. Approved uses on the project site includes up to 935 dwellings with a mix of attached and detached dwellings. The proposed project would allow development of up to 809 dwellings on the site, which would be up to 126 fewer dwellings. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would represent a substantial dwelling unit decrease on the site used as the basis of the regional Clean Air Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the regional Clean Air Plan. No new or more significant impacts would result than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. b,c) Would the project violate any air quality standards or result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. Air quality impacts of development of the Eastern Dublin Planning area were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR. The EIR found that future development of the Eastern Dublin area, including the proposed project, would contribute to the cumulative impacts related to dust deposition, construction equipment emissions, mobile source emissions and stationary source emissions and would exceed air quality standards. These impact (Impacts (IM/3.11/A, B, C and E) were was found to be significant and unavoidable when the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan was approved. The 2005 Supplemental EIR also found that development if up to 935 dwellings on the Dublin Ranch West site would result in a significant and unavoidable emission of ozone Since the proposed project would contain fewer dwellings anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and up to 126 fewer dwellings than analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, there would be no new or more severe impact with respect to violation of air quality standards than has been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. No new analysis is required. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. Impact. Residential uses are considered sensitive receptors, however, the site is not located adjacent to any freeways that would release significant air emissions. 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 in connection with the Eastern Dublin, 2005, and 2007 project approvals. No new impacts are identified in this Initial Study beyond those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR, and no additional analysis is required. Since the proposed project does not include manufacturing or similar uses, no objectionable odors would be created. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The project area, consisting of the development area and the approximately 23-acre western open space area, is dominated by non-native grassland with small areas of developed lands, riparian woodland and other aquatic habitat. A substantial amount of riparian woodland exists within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone, an adjacent private open space area that consists mostly of non-native grassland habitat with some riparian habitat. This area is not proposed for development. Regulatory framework California Fish and Wildlife Code Section 1600. Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term "stream," which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation" (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, "on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;" therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, "vegetation, which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself." Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters of the United States." Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act defines navigable waters as "waters of the United States, including territorial seas." Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the Code of Federal Regulations defines the term "waters of the United States" as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the Corps under the Clean Water Act. A summary of this definition of"waters of the U.S." in 33 CFR 328.3 includes (1) waters used for commerce; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) "other waters" such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries to the above waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining Corps jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Wallis RanchfTrumark Project April 2014 "navigable waters" as defined in the Clean Water Act are the same as "waters of the U.S." defined in the Code of Federal Regulations above. The limits of Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 as given in 33 CFR Section 328.4 are as follows: (a) Territorial seas: three nautical miles in a seaward direction from the baseline; (b) Tidal waters of the U.S.: high tide line or to the limit of adjacent non-tidal waters; (c) Non-tidal waters of the U.S.: ordinary high water mark or to the limit of adjacent wetlands; (d) Wetlands: to the limit of the wetland. Some areas that meet the technical criteria for wetlands or waters may not be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. Included in this category are some man- induced wetlands, which are areas that have developed at least some characteristics of naturally occurring wetlands due to either intentional or incidental human activities. Examples of man-induced wetlands may include, but are not limited to, irrigated wetlands, impoundments, or drainage ditches excavated in uplands, dredged material disposal areas, and depressions within construction areas. In addition, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 (2001)). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a "navigable waters of the U.S.", and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its rune Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 prohibits federal agencies from authorizing, permitting, or funding any action that would jeopardize the continued existence of a plant or animal species listed or a candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the ESA. If a federal agency is involved with a proposed action or project that may adversely affect a listed plant or animal, that agency must enter into consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 (a) (2) of the FESA. Individuals, corporations, and state or local agencies with proposed actions or projects that do not require authorizing, permitting, or funding from a federal agency but that may result in the "take" of listed species or candidate species are required to apply to the USFWS for a Section 10(a) incidental take permit. The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of "threatened" and "endangered" species. The State converted all animal species listed as "rare" under the FESA into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. CDFW implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintain the CNDDB, a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California's rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. East Alameda County Conservation Strategy. The project site is located in the East Alameda County Conservation Strategy ("Conservation Strategy") Study Area. The Conservation Strategy is intended to provide an effective framework to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources in eastern Alameda County, while improving and streamlining the environmental permitting process for impacts resulting from infrastructure and development projects. The City of Dublin is a partner in the Conservation Strategy and uses the document to provide a baseline inventory of biological resources and conservation priorities during project-level planning and environmental permitting. Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. The Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program was adopted by the City of Dublin in 1996 as an implementation program required by the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The purpose of this document is to provide more detailed requirements relating to hydrologic and biological conditions for individual development projects proposed adjacent to Tassajara Creek and its tributaries, specifically to ensure that Tassajara Creek restoration policies and programs contained in the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan are fully implemented. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss (IM 3.7/A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing management plan by the City of Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 • Mitigation Measures 3.7/6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/C) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require compliance with the specified Kit Fox Protection Plan, consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit fox on project sites and restrictions on use of pesticides and herbicides. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0-22.0 reduced impacts related to the red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle and tri-colored blackbird (IM 3.7/F-I) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for the species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/23.0-24.0 reduced impacts related to destruction of Golden Eagle nesting sites (IM 3.7/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preconstruction surveys for this species and protection of impacted habitat areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/25.0 reduced impacts related to loss of Golden Eagle foraging habitat (IM 3.7/K) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires the identification of a Golden Eagle protection zone within the Eastern Dublin planning area. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/26.0 reduced impacts related to Golden Eagle and other raptor electrocution (IM 3.7/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires undergrounding of electrical transmission facilities. • Mitigation Measures 3.7/20.0 and 27.0 reduced impacts related to burrowing owl and American badger (IM 3.7/M, N) to a less-than-significant level. This measure mandates preconstruction surveys and a minimum buffer of 300 feet around burrowing owl nesting sites and American badger breeding sites during the breeding season. • Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires follow-on special surveys for these species during appropriate times of the year. The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp- shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 2005 SEIR. Chapter 4.3 of this SEIR contained a comprehensive update regarding potential species and identified the following significant biological impacts. • Supplemental Impact BIO-1 noted an impact to California Tiger Salamander (CTS) species. Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-1 through BIO-7 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preparation of a CTS Management Plan, installation of a barrier fence, conducting CTS larval studies, acquiring compensatory CTS estivation habitat area, completion of an Open Space Management Plan, appointment of a biological resource monitor during construction and providing biological resource education to construction staff. • Supplemental Impact BIO-2 found a significant impact with respect to California red-legged frogs (CRLF). This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level through adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-8 though BIO- 10. These supplemental measures required CRLF avoidance measures during prior to and during construction, provision of compensatory upland and dispersal habitat land and limitations on grading activities during the rainy season. • Supplemental Impact BIO-3 noted an impact regarding breeding birds. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 11 and 12 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by limiting tree removal to appropriate times of the year, establishing buffers around trees with nests and conducting pre-construction surveys for protected birds prior to construction. • Supplemental Impact BIO-4 noted an impact with regard to bat species. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 13 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for bat species. If occupied bat nests are found, a qualified biologist shall implement an exclusion plan to prevent further occupancy. • Supplemental Impact BIO-5 found an impact with respect to Burrowing Owls. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 14 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring preconstruction surveys for owl species, limiting construction periods and creating alternative burrows away from construction areas. The mitigation requires the project developer to develop a management plan for enhancement of burrows, monitoring of burrows, funding assurance and similar measures. • Supplemental Impact BIO-6 found an impact with loss of special-status plants. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 through 7 and 15 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring compensatory habitat for loss of Congdon's tarplant lost to construction and be requiring the project developer to prepare a detailed mitigation and monitoring plan for this species. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 • Supplemental Impact BIO-7 noted an impact regarding loss of riparian habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-5 and 6, 16 and 17 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by mandating replacement riparian habitat at a 3:1 ratio and completing a Riparian Habitat Management Plan to compensate loss of this habitat type. A Tree Removal and Preservation Plan is also required to protect trees from construction activity and to require replacement trees for those lost to construction. • Supplemental Impact BIO-8 found a temporary impact with loss of aquatic habitat. Adherence to Supplemental Mitigation Measures SM-BIO-6 and 18 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring all aquatic habitat to be replaced to pre-project conditions. A Restoration Plan for Tassajara Creek was also required that would minimize impacts to aquatic resources during construction. The proposed project will be required to adhere to applicable biological resource mitigation measures contained in the above documents prepared for the site. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR document the presence of special-status plant and wildlife species within the general project area and on the project site. Numerous mitigation measures are included in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR to reduce impacts to candidate, sensitive and special- status species to a less-than significant level. These are listed above and must be completed prior to start of development. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts with respect to candidate, sensitive or special-status species would occur than have been analyzed in the three previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. The proposed project would continue to contribute to cumulative loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact (IM 3.7/C) in the Eastern Dublin EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. No wetlands and waters of the United States have been identified on the upland portion of the project site in the 2005 SEIR. This is the proposed development area. Although wetlands and riparian habitat exist within and adjacent to Tassajara Creek, this area is protected by a permanent conservation easement and no development would occur in this location. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to this topic. No additional is required. d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. Mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents prepared to analyze the currently approved development project on the site contain mitigation measures that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level, including placement of biological barriers to prevent migration of some species on the site. The proposed City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 project would disturb the same amount of the site in the same area as the currently approved site. The regional native fish and wildlife corridor in the project area is Tassajara Creek, which forms the eastern boundary of the site. Tassajara Creek and immediately adjacent land has been included in a permanent conservation easement to ensure full migration opportunities for native fish and wildlife. No new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed with respect to potential interference with fish or wildlife movement. No additional analysis is required. e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project could affect native oak trees and other trees species on the site. The City of Dublin affords Heritage Tree status to any oak,bay, cypress, maple, redwood, buckeye, or sycamore tree with a main trunk of at least twenty-four inches in diameter when measured at fifty-two inches above the natural grade; trees required for preservation under an approved development plan, zoning permit, use permit, site development review, or subdivision map; and trees planted as replacements for unlawfully removed trees. Permits are required for the removal of any Heritage Tree. Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-17 contained in the 2005 SEIR requires the project applicant to prepare a Tree Removal and Preservation. The measure requires the Plan to be approved by the City prior to issuance of a grading plan. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan,but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts with respect to this topic than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR. No additional analysis is required. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting The site is generally vacant and contains an existing inhabited residence (in the process of being vacated), associated outbuildings and one historic school building, the Antone School. The school building was moved onto the site several years ago. The current Development Agreement for the property requires the developer to relocate this structure on the site and restore it. In the event the structure is damaged during City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 relocation making it impracticable to restore, the developer shall construct a replacement building as approved by the Dublin Community Development Director. The Eastern Dublin EIR did not identify any significant historic structures on the project site. The Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR found impacts to cultural resources to be less-than- significant. Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts to cultural resources from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.9/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/A) to a less-than- significant level. These mitigations mandate a program of mechanical and/or hand subsurface testing for the presence or absence of midden deposits, recordation of identified midden sites, collection and/or testing of resources and development of a site-specific protection program for prehistoric sites. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9B) to a less-than- significant level. These measures required that grading or construction activity be stopped if historic resources were discovered, until the significance of the find could be ascertained. • Mitigation Measures 3.9/7.0-12.0 reduced impacts related to disruption or destruction of identified historic resources to a less-than-significant level (Impact 3.9/Q. These measures would include preparing site-specific archival research for individual resources, encourage adaptive reuse of historic resources, recordation of historic sites on local state and federal registers, as appropriate and development of preservation programs for significant resources. 2005 SEIR. The Initial Study of the 2005 SEIR did not identify any potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures with respect to cultural resources. The proposed project will be required to comply with the EDSP EIR cultural resource mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? No New Impact. Although one historic structure exists on the project site, the Antone School building, the applicant proposes to rehabilitate this structure re-using materials from the existing structure to replace the existing fagade and incorporate the structure into the project. No new or more severe supplemental impacts have City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Wallis RanchfTrumark Project April 2014 therefore been identified for the proposed project than were disclosed in previous CEQA documents. b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or paleontological resources? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities, including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. The Eastern Dublin EIR categorized these resources.as pre-historic cultural resources. None of these pre- historic sites were identified by the EIR within near the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed that all pre-historic sites would be disturbed or altered in some manner. This potential impact was identified and addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (Impact 3.9/A) and mitigation measures 3.9/1.0 through 3.9/4.0 (page 3.9-6—3.9-7) that require subsurface testing for archeological resources; recordation and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, described above, also were adopted to address the potential disruption of any previously unidentified pre-historic resources and would apply to the project as may be appropriate. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains policies (Policies 6-24 and 6-25) requiring research of archaeological resources prior to construction and determination of the significance and extent of any resources uncovered during grading and construction. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with respect to cultural resources have been identified that have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project area and no additional analysis is required. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? No New Impact. Existing cultural resource mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR reduced impacts to human remains to a less-than-significant level. No new or more severe impacts with respect to cultural impacts are anticipated beyond those previously analyzed. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting This section is based on a recent site-specific geotechnical report ("Geotechnical Feasibility Review, Wallis Ranch Residential Development, Alameda County, California" prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group dated June 12, 2013). This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Geology and soils. The Cornerstone report identified alluvial soils on the lower, eastern portion of the site near Tassajara Creek and upper Tassajara Formation bedrock on the City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 upper hillside portion of the site. Alluvial soils are composed of stiff to very still clays with high potential for shrink and swell. Landslide potential. Portions of the site have moderate to steep slopes. Although some of the hillsides would be re-graded to allow for development, there is a potential for landslide on the site. This topic has been addressed in the Cornerstone report and recommendations are included in the report to ensure landsliding potential will not be significant. Seismic hazard. The Cornerstone report notes that the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. The site is subject to strong ground shaking in the event of seismic activity, consistent with all of the Bay area. Tsunami and seiche hazards. The risk of damage to future improvements on the site from a tsunami or seiche is low due to the inland location of the site. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to Soils, Geology and Seismicity from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B)but not to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure requires that future structure and infrastructure facilities be designed to applicable local and state building codes. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered fill, and design of structures to account of potential soil failure. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations require grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM 3.6/H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/17.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to natural slope stability (IM 3.6/I) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures mandate City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 formulation of use of site-specific designs based on follow-on geotechnical reviews of individual developments, limiting the location of improvements on downslopes of unstable soils, removal/reconstruction of potentially unstable slope areas and installation of surface and subsurface slope drainage improvements. • Mitigation Measures 3.6/20.0-26.0 reduced impacts related to cut and fill slope stability (IM 3.6/J) to a less-than-significant level. These measures include developing grading plans for hillside areas that minimize grading and associate cuts and fills, ensuring that grading plans comply with appropriate building codes, utilizing keys and benches as part of grading to ensure slope stability and minimizing use of unreinforced fill slopes, appropriate compaction of fill areas and on-going maintenance of slope drainage areas. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/K) to a less-than- significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control measures. • Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6/L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects, including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded areas and similar measures. 2005 SEIR. The Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR updated the Eastern Dublin EIR analysis based on a geologic study specific to the Wallis site. No supplemental impacts or mitigation measures related to geology or soils were identified in this document. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable EDSP EIR soil, geologic and seismic mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking,ground failure, or landslides? No New Impact. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the primary and secondary effects of ground-shaking (Impacts 3.6/B and 3.6/C) could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 the primary effects of ground-shaking are reduced but not to a less-than- significant level by using modern seismic design for resistance to lateral forces in construction, which would reduce the potential for structure failure, major structural damage and loss of life. Consistent with the mitigations for Impact 3.6/C, the Cornerstone geotechnical report identifies construction techniques, such as special footings and use of materials, to ensure that adverse impacts from ground shaking, landslides, ground failure and other geologic hazards, to be included in the project design as required by the City of Dublin, to minimize geological hazard impacts as anticipated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 SEIR. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents. No further analysis is required. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Construction of the proposed project improvements on the site would 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/K). Long-term impacts could result from modification of the ground-surface and removal of existing vegetation (Eastern Dublin EIR Impact 3.6/Q. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and re-stated above, both of these impacts would be less-than-significant. The project will implement the erosion controls from the EDEIR as well as the RWQCB measures referenced in the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR. Through the Cornerstone report, the project complies with adopted measures that site-specific erosion and other controls be identified and implemented. The Eastern Dublin Specific Plan also contains a policy (Policy 6-43), which requires that new development be designed to provide effective control of soil erosion as a result of construction activities. This policy will be applied to the proposed project. With adherence to previous mitigation measures, there would be no new or more severe impacts than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for this site and no further analysis is required. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.6/7.0 and standard City development procedures, the project applicant has retained a geologist to prepare a soils and geotechnical report, as identified above. The report contains methods to minimize impacts from shrink-swell, lateral spreading and landslide potential for future improvements on the site. With adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan policies and the findings of the Cornerstone geotechnical report, no new or more severe impacts have been identified related to lateral spreading, liquefaction and other soil hazards than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No further analysis is required. e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? No New Impact. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no new or more severe impacts with regard to septic systems. City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993 and subsequent CEQA documents, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of greenhouse gasses. The topic of the project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2005 SEIR. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2005 SEIR have been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (Public Resources Code section 21166 and Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR were certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of these EIRs. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change were extensively discussed and analyzed in California. In 2000, SB 1771 established the California Climate Action Registry for the recordation of greenhouse gas emissions to provide information about potential environmental impacts. In 2005, the Governor issued Executive Order # S-03- 05 establishing greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in California. AB 32 was adopted in 2006. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in May 1993 and the certification of a SEIR in 2005. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental envirorunental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project Impacts a,b Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed above, no additional environmental analysis is required under CEQA Section 21166. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section of the Initial Study is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group. in June 2013 (" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 6582 Tassajara Road, Dublin"). This document is incorporated into this City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Wallis RanchfTrumark Project April 2014 Initial Study by reference and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. Environmental Setting The Phase I analysis prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group did not identify any recognized environmental conditions on the project site. As is normal and customary for conversion of a former agricultural area to urban uses, the Cornerstone Phase I report does recommend preparation of a Site Management Plan that would establish protocols in the event hazards are encountered during construction. The project site is located considerably north of Livermore Municipal Airport and is not within the Airport Influence Area of this facility. The site is located within and adjacent to a wildland area that is subject to wildland fire hazard. Previous CEQA documents Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR examined the potential for hazardous materials and wildfire impacts and found them to be less-than-significant. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No New Impact. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed project involves construction of a residential development on the site. Proposed land uses on the site would not use, store or transport of significant quantities of hazardous materials. No new or more severe impacts would therefore occur on the site than have been previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No New Impact. Based on the discussion in subsection "a," above, no new impacts are anticipated with respect to the release of hazardous materials than were analyzed in the 2005 SEIR initial study document and no additional analysis is required. e) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Although the Quarry Lane private school is located just to the east of the project site, approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since no hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials would be released from the project, since the project would be a residential development. City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. No properties comprising the project area are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of February 6, 2014. There is therefore no new or more severe impacts impact with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would have no impact with regard to this topic, since no schools exist or are planned near the project area. No new impact with respect to emission or handing of hazardous materials within one-quarter of an existing or planned school will result from the project. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site lies significantly north of the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of Livermore Municipal Airport and is not included in the AIA. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic than previously analyzed and no additional analysis is required. g) Intel ference with an emergency evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include the construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe impacts would result than have been previously analyzed, in the EDEIR or the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR, and no additional analysis is required. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project site is located in a largely rural and undeveloped area of Eastern Dublin. Properties to the north lie in Contra Costa County and are undeveloped. Land to the west is undeveloped and is within Parks RFTA. The project is required to adhere to mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR (as discussed in the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR) and City's Wildfire Management Plan (updated in 2002). No new or more severe impacts will result beyond those previously identified and no additional analysis is required. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water. The project site is located within the Tassajara Creek watershed which drains to the San Francisco Bay via the Arroyo Del Valle and Arroyo de la Laguna. The main course of Tassajara Creek flows in a north-south direction just east of the site. The project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial StudyMallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Surface water quality.Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. Flooding. The project site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area (Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 060705-0002B). Previous CEOA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: • Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48 reduced impacts related potential flooding (IM 3.5/Y) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development, requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects and requires new flood control facilities to alleviate downstream flooding potential. • Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 and 52.0 reduced impacts related to non-point source pollution (IM 3.5/AA) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures mandate that specific water quality investigations be submitted as part of development projects and that the City should develop community-based programs to educate residents and businesses to reduce non-point source pollution. 2005 SEIR. Hydrology and water quality was addressed in the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR. No potentially significant impacts or mitigation measures related to hydrology and water quality were included in this document. The proposed project shall adhere to all of the applicable above previous mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed development project would add impervious surfaces to the essentially undeveloped site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. Mitigation Measure 3.5/51.0 contained in the EDSP EIR requires each project developer to prepare and submit a water quality investigation. The City of Dublin also requires City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 new development proposals to adhere to the most recent surface water quality standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Wallis Ranch developer is proposing to install a large water quality/hydromodification basin on the east-central portion of the site to filter water runoff prior to outfall into Tassajara Creek. Other, smaller, bioswales would be installed through the site. The proposed water quality facilities will ensure that water quality and waste discharge standards are met. No new or more significant impacts with respect to water quality violations or wastewater discharges would result than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. A portion of the site would remain as open space that would allow recharge of the underground aquifer. Also, stormwater runoff from the site would be directed to proposed stormwater basin located on the east-central portion of the site that would allow recharge into the underground aquifer. Also, the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not local groundwater supplies. As noted in the EDEIR and Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR, the project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The project is required to comply with EDEIR mitigation measures 3.5/49 and 50 to protect water quality and support Zone 7's groundwater recharge program. No new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic than has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. New impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces. Existing drainage patterns may be modified based on proposed development, similar to the existing approved Development Plan. However adherence to Mitigation Measure 46.0 requirement for a site-specific storm drainage master plan, as contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, would ensure that impacts related to changed drainage patterns are less-than-significant. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to changed drainage patterns than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. No impacts or significant changes to drainage patterns are anticipated as part of the project. Based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, cited above, the proposed development area lies outside of a FEMA 100-year flood hazard area. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. Adherence to Eastern Dublin City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 EIR Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 will reduce drainage and pollution impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require new storm drainage facilities as part of new development and requires developers to prepare storm drain plans for individual development projects such as the Wallis Ranch project. In compliance with these mitigations, the project applicant proposes the construction of a large water quality and hydromodificaton basin in the southern portion of the site as well as a number of vegetated swales throughout the site to filter stormwater. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding flooding or increases in stormwater runoff than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. f) Substantially degrade water quality? This issue has been addressed above in items "a" and "e." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, above, the site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard zone. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated than have been previously analyzed. h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? No New Impact. Refer to item "g," above regarding flood hazard. The project site lies outside of a dam failure inundation area, as mapped by the Association of Bay Area Governments (http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickdamx.pl). j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. The project site is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Consistent with prior mitigations for slope stability, the Cornerstone geotechnical report addresses landslide and mudflow potential and includes design and construction methods to minimize impacts from this hazard. No new or more significant impacts would result than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The project site contains a dwelling and unoccupied historic school building. Surrounding uses include a combination of developed and undeveloped properties within the Eastern Dublin Planning area. Properties to the east have been or are in the process of developing for residential uses. The property west of the site is a part of Parks RFTA and is used for military training purposes. Properties to the north are within the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County and contain rural residential uses. Properties south of the Wallis Ranch are owned by a combination of the East Bay Regional Park District and Parks RFTA. City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. Uses to the north and west of the Wallis Ranch are vacant and are likely not to experience significant development in the future due to the nature of the ownership (Parks RFTA) or being located in a rural residential portion of Contra Costa County to the north. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? No New Impact. No amendments have been requested to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to change development areas on the site and the number of dwellings would be somewhat less with the proposed project than has been previously approved (935 approved v. up to 809 proposed). No changes are proposed to any regulation regulating environmental protection. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to land use regulations than have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents prepared for this site. No additional analysis is required. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and mitigation for wildlife habitat impacts associated with land development, infrastructure, and other activities. The Conservation Strategy is neither a Habitat Conservation Plan nor a Natural Community Conservation Plan, but is a document intended to provide guidance during the project planning and permitting process to ensure that impacts are offset in a biologically effective manner. There would therefore be no new or significantly more severe impacts than previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR. No additional analysis is required. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The project site contains no known mineral resources. This is based on the Eastern Dublin EIR. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. Neither the Eastern Dublin EIR nor the 2005 SEIR indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the project site, so no new or more severe impacts would occur than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 12. Noise Environmental Setting The City defines "noise" as a sound or series of sounds that are intrusive, irritating, objectionable and/or disruptive to daily life. Noise is primarily a concern with regard to noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, churches and hospitals. Although noise is controlled around commercial, industrial and recreation uses, community noise levels rarely exceed maximum recommended levels for these uses. Re ug latory Setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadways within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. On the project site, primary noise sources include vehicle noise from Tassajara Road and distant noise from operations at Parks RFTA. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 2. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60 or less 61-80 71-80 Over 80 Schools,churches, 60 or less 61-70 71-80 Over 80 nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 61-65 66-70 Over 70 arks Office/Retail 70 or less 71-75 76-80 Over 80 Industrial 70 or less 71-75 Over 75 J -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element,Table 9-1, 2012 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter overflights from Camp Parks RFTA, west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise sources are identified on the project site. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include: City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 • Mitigation Measures 3.10/1.0 reduced impacts related to exposure of proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3.10/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation measure require that all future development projects within a future CNEL 60 noise contour have an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City noise exposure levels. • Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 reduced impacts related to construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans and to limit hours of construction operations. 2005 SEIR. Noise impacts were addressed in the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR. No supplemental impacts or mitigations were identified. The proposed project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation measures identified above. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard? No New Impact. Development of proposed residential land uses on the project site would increase noise on the project site and future residences would be subject to traffic noise from vehicles using Tassajara Road to the east. Consistent with EDEIR mitigation measure 3.10/1.0, a recommended condition of SDR and subdivision map approval will be to have an acoustic specialist ensure that project components, including residences, outdoor living areas and parks, are designed to meet City noise standards. Likely techniques could include setbacks from the roadway, enhanced landscaping, enhanced glazing for the residences, among other things. The project is required to adhere to Eastern Dublin EIR noise mitigation measures, noise standards in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the City noise ordinance. No new or more significant noise impacts have been identified than have previously analyzed. No further analysis is required. The project would contribute to cumulative noise conditions identified as Impact 3.10/B in the Eastern Dublin EIR, which is exposure of existing residences to future roadway noise. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Also, EDSP EIR Impact 3.10/D, exposure of proposed residential development to noise from future military training activities at Parks RFTA, was found to be significant and unavoidable. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. Consistent with discussion in the Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR, the proposed project would not include construction or operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels to nearby residents (source: Jim Templeton, project engineer, 2/10/14). No new impacts would result with respect to vibration or groundborne vibration than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents on the project site. No additional analysis is required. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Wallis RanchlTrumark Project April 2014 c) Substantial increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. Increased levels of permanent noise on the project that would occur based on project development would be reduced to a less-than significant level through adherence to applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the Dublin Noise Ordinance. The fewer number of dwellings on the project site (809) than the approved project (935) would also generate fewer vehicle trips to and from the site and would also represent a fewer number of mechanical systems on the site that generate local noise. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Increased levels of short-term construction noise generated on the project site were addressed in EDEIR Impact 3.10/E and applicable mitigation measures. The project is also subject to the Dublin Noise Ordinance. These measures require project developers to limit hours of construction activity and to prepare construction noise management plans. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact.Based on Exhibit 3-2 contained in the Livermore Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (2012), the Wallis Ranch site lies well north of the noise compatibility zone for this airport. The project site would therefore not be subjected to substantial aircraft noise from this airport. As noted in the Eastern Dublin EIR and Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR, the project site could be subject to overflight noise from Camp Parks. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated in terms of this topic than was previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The project is generally vacant but contains one inhabited dwelling (in the process of being vacated) that would be removed to allow construction of the proposed project. An existing historic building also exists on the site as discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this Initial Study. Project Imi2acts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would not induce substantial additional population growth in the Eastern Dublin area, since development on the affected properties has been envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and Dublin General Plan and was approved for development in site-specific approvals in 2005 and 2007.. Approval of the proposed project would result in fewer dwellings being constructed than currently approved on the site (935 units currently approved v. City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch[Trumark Project April 2014 809 proposed.) No new or more severe impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. Only one housing unit and associated inhabitants would be displaced should be project be approved and implemented, although existing residents are currently relocating from the dwelling. No new or more severe impacts than were previously analyzed are therefore anticipated with respect housing displacement as several residences were occupied at the time of the 2005 SEIR. No additional analysis is required. 14. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18 at 4800 Fallon Road. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Alameda County Sheriff under contact to the City of Dublin. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services for properties on the project site. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities are the responsibility of the City of Dublin. Previous CE QA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0: Establish appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital fire improvements. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0: Incorporate Fire Department recommendations on project design relating to access, water pressure, fire safety and prevention into the requirements of development approval. City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 • Mitigation Measure 3.4/10.0: Ensure, as a requirement of project approval, that an assessment district, homeowners association or other mechanism is in place that will provide regular long-term maintenance of the urban/open space interface. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0: The City shall work with the Fire Department and qualified biologists to prepare a wildfire management plan for the project area. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0: Provide additional personnel and facilities and revise beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police protection service in Eastern Dublin. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/3.0-5.0: Incorporate into the requirements of project approval Police Department recommendations on project design that affect traffic safety and crime prevention. 2005 SEIR. The Initial Study for the 2005 SEIR analyzed public service impacts and found no new or more severe impacts beyond those identified in the EDEIR The project will be required to comply with the above mitigation measures. Protect Impacts a) Fire protection? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of fire and emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department, as a result of a greater number of dwellings on the project site compared to existing conditions. The proposed project is required to adhere to previously adopted mitigation measures, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0) . Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed development on the project site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure and fire flow, providing adequate site access, using fire retardant building materials and similar features. Proposed development on the site will also be conditioned to be consistent with the City's adopted Wildfire Management Plan (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/12.0). Based on discussions with Alameda County Fire Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to fire service beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department, 2/7/14) and no new or expanded fire stations would be needed to provide fire and emergency service for the proposed project. No additional analysis is required. b) Police protection? No New Impact. Similar to fire protection, there would be no new impact with regard to police protection,based on mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR. These Mitigation Measures include paying City of Dublin City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 public facility impact fees to assist in funding new police facilities (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0), incorporating Police Department safety and security requirements into the proposed project, including but not limited to adequate locking devices, security lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance for structures and parking areas (EDSP EIR Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). Based on discussions with Dublin Police Services Department staff, there would be no new or substantially more severe impacts with respect to police service associated with the proposed project beyond that analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Captain Tom McCarthy,Dublin Police Services, 2/7/14). No additional analysis is required. c) Schools? No New Impact. No new impacts to school service are anticipated should the proposed project be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts of the proposed project pursuant to CEQA. The currently proposed project would result in fewer school-aged children to be accommodated in DUSD school facilities than estimated in Chapter 4.8 of the 2005 SEIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? No New Impact. Maintenance of public facilities would continue to be provided by the City of Dublin with no new impacts in regard to this topic. New public facilities will be required to be designed to meet City of Dublin standards. There would therefore be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts with respect to this impact than has been previously analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. 15. Recreation Environmental Setting No neighborhood or community parks and/or recreation services or facilities exist on the project site. However, a 7.66-acre neighborhood park site is proposed as a development require of the project and is shown on current development plans. The City of Dublin maintains a wide range of park facilities throughout the community. Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in Alameda and Contra Costa County. The City of Dublin has planned a regional recreational trail along Tassajara Road in front of the proposed project. The portion of the trail adjacent to the project site would be constructed by the project developer. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and police protection include: • Mitigation Measure 3.4/29.0: Ensure, as a part of the approval process, that each new development provide its fair share of planned open space, parklands and trail corridors. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/31.0: Calculate and assess in-lieu park fees based on the City's parkland dedication ordinance. Credit towards parkland dedication requirements will only be given for level or gently sloping areas suitable for active recreation use. • Mitigation Measure 3.4/36.0: Require developer to dedicate public access easements along ridgetops and stream corridors to accommodate the development of trails and staging areas. 2005 SEIR. This document included supplemental mitigation measure PARK-1 that required the project developer to either provide an additional 1.04 net acre of Neighborhood Park area or provide a minimum of 1.9 net acres of Neighborhood Park area in close proximity to the project site. The current project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures identified above. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would increase the use of nearby City or regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing the on-site permanent population on the site, but to a lesser extent than analyzed in previous CEQA documents. The applicant proposes to dedicate a public park site to the City of Dublin and provide one private park on the site consistent with the 2005 SEIR Mitigation Measure. There would therefore be no new or more severe impacts with respect to recreation than were previously analyzed. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? See item "a," above. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting Roadways and freeways. The project area is served by Tassajara Road, an arterial road that provides access from southern Contra Costa County to the I-580 freeway and southerly into Alameda County south of the I-580 freeway. City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Existing transit service. Transit service to the project site is provided by The Livermore/Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) provides bus service in Dublin and throughout the Tri-Valley. The Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) provides regional rapid transit service with the nearest station located at the Dublin Transit Center, located on the south side of Dublin Boulevard just west of Arnold Road. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. There are no marked pedestrian facilities adjacent to the proposed project site along Tassajara Road. However, there is a striped and paved shoulder for bicycles on either side of Tassajara Road adjacent to the project site. Within the study area, there are numerous bicycle and pedestrian facilities providing access throughout the City of Dublin Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated traffic impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These measures generally include construction of new roadways, widening of existing roadways and improvements to local freeway facilities to accommodate anticipated increases in the number of vehicles associated with the build out of the Eastern Dublin area. With the exceptions noted below, the EIR found that all traffic and transportation impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the EIR. A number of impacts could not be reduced to a level of insignificance even with mitigations. These include: impacts to the 1-580 freeway between I-680 and Hacienda Drive (IM 3.3/B), impacts to the I-580 Freeway between Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard (IM 3.3/C), cumulative freeway impacts (IM 3.3/E) impacts to Santa Rita Road and T-580 Eastbound ramps (IM 3.3/1), and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road (IM 3.3/N). 2005 SEIR. This CEQA document identified the following significant supplemental impacts and mitigation measures: • Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-1 reduced the impact of additional traffic along Tassajara Road segments near the project site to a less-than-significant level by requiring the developer to widen Tassajara Road to four travel lanes between North Dublin Ranch Drive to the northern project access road. • Supplemental Mitigation Measure TRA-2 reduced the impact of potential traffic safety impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring installation of traffic signals at the two project entrances, provide an east-bound right-turn lane, provide northbound left-turn capacity from Tassajara Road onto project access drives, provide a northbound left-turn lane from Tassajara Road onto the southern access drive and provide a southbound right-turn pocket with a taper on Tassajara Road at both access roadways.. The proposed project will be required to comply with all of the above transportation and circulation mitigation measures. City of Dublin Page 66 Initial Study/Wallis RanchlTrumark Project April 2014 Project Impacts a,b) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections, streets, highways and other components or conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? The Eastern Dublin EIR considered the development of the project site with residential land uses and adopted mitigation measures to address the impacts thereof. Additional analysis of increased traffic and circulation impacts occurred in as part of the 2005 SEIR. As noted above, even though the City of Dublin ultimately approved development of up to 935 dwellings on the Dublin Ranch West site, the 2005 SEIR analyzed up to 1,034 dwellings on the property. Table 3, below, compares daily, AM peak and PM peak trips on the site from the 2005 SEIR and the currently proposed development program. Documentation of this is found in Attachment 1 of this Initial Study. This document is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study. Table 3. Trip Generation Comparison Land Use(ITE Code) Size Daily A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour (d.u.) Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total 2005 SEIR Project' 1,034 - 8,713 - 152 527 679 - 580 309 889 Single-Family Detached 624 9.07 5,660 0.72 112 335 447 0.87 344 202 546 Housing(210) Proposed Wallis Low-Rise Ranch Residential 185 5.94* 1,099 0.61 28 85 113 0.78 84 60 144 Condominium/T ownhouse(23 1) Total 809 1 15.01 1 6,759 1.33 1 140 420 1 560 1.65 428 262 1 690 Difference -225 - -1954 - -12 -107 1 -119 -152 -47 1 -199 Notes: d.u.=Dwelling Units 'From Supplemental EIR for Dublin Ranch West Development, 2005 2Proposed Wallis Ranch minus 2005 EIR Project 'Daily Rate is for Residential Condominium/Townhouse(230); ITE lacks daily rate for Low-Rise Residential Condo/Townhouse(231) For Single-Family Detached Housing (210): Daily Trips= Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X) +2.72;AM Trips=T=0.70(X) +9.74; PM Trips= Ln (T)=0.90Ln(X) +0.51;where X=Number of Dwelling units and T=Average Vehicle Trip Ends. For Low-Rise Residential Condominium[Townhouse(231): Daily Trips=Ln(T)=0.87Ln(X)+2.46;A.M.Trips=T= 0.88(X)—49.70; P.M. Trips=No. of Dwelling Units x Average Rate(0.78), where X=Number of Dwelling units and T=Average Vehicle Trip Ends. Source of trip rates for Proposed Wallis Ranch: ITE Trip Generation, 91 h Edition, 2012 City of Dublin Page 67 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Based on the above table, the proposed Wallis Ranch project would generate an estimated 107 fewer A.M. peak hour trips, 199 fewer P.M. peak hour trips and 1,954 fewer daily trips than the amount of development analyzed in the 2005 SEIR. However, if approved and constructed, the project would continue to contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative project impacts as part of the larger Eastern Dublin project. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified such impacts on the following roads and transportation facilities: • I-580 freeway between 1-680 and Hacienda Drive; • The Santa Rita Road/I-580 eastbound ramps; • The Dublin Boulevard/Hacienda Drive and Dublin Boulevard/Tassajara Road intersection • Other impacts to Tassajara Road, as identified in the EIR. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. The proposed project includes residential uses and would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in other CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The current development proposal will be required to comply with current City engineering design standards, appropriate supplemental mitigation measures from the 2005 SEIR dealing with traffic safety and other safety standards to ensure that no safety hazards would be created or exacerbated. No new or more severe impacts with respect to design hazards would be created than previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Two access drives are already constructed into the project site from Tassajara Road. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic. No additional analysis is required. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No New Impact. No conflicts to plans, policies or programs that promote public transit, pedestrian use or similar features were identified in previous CEQA reviews for the subject property. No new or more impacts have been identified in this Initial City of Dublin Page 68 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Study that has been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents for the project site. No additional analysis is required. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project area is served by the following service providers: • Water supply and distribution: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). • Sewage collection and treatment; recycled water: DSRSD. • Storm drainage: City of Dublin and Zone 7. • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT &T Previous CEQA documents Eastern Dtitblin EIR. In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area to connect to the DSRSD water system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5/R). This impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/32.0-31.0, which requires improvement to the Zone 7 water system, to be funded by individual development impact fees. Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures3.5/4.34.0-38.0. These mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population in the project area. The Eastern Dublin found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact. City of Dublin Page 69 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5 noted an impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate increased sewer demand from the proposed Specific Plan project. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal capacity as a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility has been constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency and is operational. Impact 3.5/E identified lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure. 2005 SEIR. Utilities and services were addressed in Chapter 4.7 of the 2005 SEIR. No supplemental mitigation measures were included in this CEQA document. The project developer shall be required to adhere to the applicable Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. The current project would contain the same type of development as analyzed in the 2005 SEIR and, based on recent discussions with DSRSD staff (noted below) regarding this project, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No new or more significant impacts with respect to wastewater treatment requirements have been identified in this Initial Study than have been analyzed in previous EIRs. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. Water, recycled water and wastewater extensions to existing mains in Tassajara Road would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed in the Wallis Ranch development application. According to a representative of DSRSD, District wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project would not result in a new or more significant impact than was analyzed in previous CEQA documents (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 2/18/14). No additional analysis is required. The Wallis Ranch project would also contribute to cumulative impacts related to consumption of non-renewable natural resources (Impact 3.4/S, increase in energy use though increased wastewater treatment and disposal and though the operation of the water system (Impact 3.5/F, H, and U), and inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population (Impact 3.5/T). All of these impacts were City of Dublin Page 70 Initial Study/Wallis RanchrFrumark Project April 2014 identified as significant and unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR and were overridden by the City Council. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. The proposed development project would require new and or upgraded drainage facilities to support proposed development. Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, the project developer will be required to install new or upgraded on and off-site (if required) storm drain systems that comply with City of Dublin and Zone 7 standards. The current project would include on-site storm pipes and a large water quality pond to ensure consistency with the City-approved stormwater management plan prepared for this project. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with respect to storm drain facilities that have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. No additional analysis is required. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. Based on the information provided by DSRSD staff, the District has planned for future urban uses on this site (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 2/18/14). However, DSRSD staff also note that due to the current water emergency resulting from the drought, DSRSD will limit use of water for construction purposes. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with respect to water supplies than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? See response to "a," above. e, f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. The project site is within the franchise area of Amador Valley Industries that provides residential and commercial solid waste pick-up and recycling services. According to representatives of the company, no solid waste service is currently provided to the area, since it is undeveloped. The topic of solid waste disposal was not identified as a potentially significant impact in previous CEQA documents and no new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No New Impact. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations. No new or more severe impacts are anticipated impacts than have been previously analyzed. No additional analysis is required. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. . Potential impacts related to biological resources, including a reduction in habitat area of fish or wildlife species, elimination of a plant or animal community, or City of Dublin Page 71 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 elimination of an important example of major periods of California history or prehistory was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and supplemented in the 2005 SEIR. The proposed project would represent less development intensity than previously analyzed in earlier CEQA documents and would implement previously adopted mitigation measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). No. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Sub Area 3 project have been fully analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2005 SEIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Andy Russell PE, City Engineer Obaid Khan, City Transportation Engineer Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Darrell Jones, Alameda County Fire Department Chief Tom McCarthy, Dublin Police Services Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSQ Website DSRSD Stan Kolozdie Applicant Representatives Christopher Davenport, Trumark Homes City of Dublin Page 72 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch[frumark Project April 2014 References Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 7/2/11 Eastern Dublin General Plan, Wallace Roberts &Todd, 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994 Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore Associates, 1996 Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates & Associates, 1996 Livermore Municipal Airport, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, ESA Associates, August 2012 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2006 update All resolutions and ordinances referenced in the Initial Study are incorporated herein by reference and available for review at City Hall during normal business hours. City of Dublin Page 73 Initial Study/Wallis Ranch/Trumark Project April 2014 Attachment 1 Trip Generation Analysis City of Dublin Page 74 Initial Study/Wallis RanchfTrumark Project April 2014 L"I, 4 Vision That Mw"Your CotnmuKq Transportation Consultants February 28, 2014 Mr.Jerry Haag 2029 University Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 Re: Wallis Ranch/Trumark Development in the City of Dublin Dear Mr. Haag: TJKM Transportation Consultants has prepared this letter report comparing trip generation for the 184-acre Wallis Ranch development site for the currently proposed mix of 809 dwelling units (d.u.)versus the project trip generation estimate for 1,034 d.u, presented in the certified 2005 Supplemental EIR for Dublin Ranch West Development(2005 SEIR). The project site is located west of Tassajara Road and south of the Alameda/Contra Costa County line. The purpose of this trip generation comparison is to assess whether the currently proposed 809-unit mix at the Wallis Ranch site has the potential to generate additional traffic impacts not identified in the 2005 SEIR. Results As Table I indicates,the project analyzed in the 2005 SEIR for the Wallis Ranch site was estimated to generate 8,713 weekday daily trips, 679 a.m. peak hour trips, and 889 p.m. peak hour trips. Comparatively, using trip rates in Trip Generation, 91h Edition published by ITE (2012), the currently proposed Wallis Ranch project is expected to generate 6,759 weekday daily trips, 560 trips during the a.m. peak hour, and 690 trips during the p.m. peak hour, which represents fewer daily and peak hour trips than the project the SEIR analyzed. Table I:Trip Generation Comparison Size Daily A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Land Use(ITE Code) (d.u.) Pleasanton 1 Rate Total Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total 4305 Hacienda Drive II Suite 550 2005 SEIR Project' 1,034 8,713 152 527 679 580 309 889 Pleasanton,CA 94588.8526 925.463.061 I Single-Family 925.463.3690 fax Detached 624 9.07 5,660 0.72 112 335 447 0.87 344 202 546 Fresno Housing(2 10) 516 W.Shaw Avenue Site 200 Proposed Low-Rise Fresno,CA Wallis Residential 93704.2515 Ranch Condominium/ 185 5.94* 1.099 H13 28 85 113 0.78 84 60 144 559.325.7530 559.22IA940 fax Townhouse (231) Sacramento I - 980 Ninth Street Total 809 15.01 6,759 140 420 560 1.65 428 262 690 16-Floor Sacramento,CA Difference2 225 -1954 - -12 -107 -119 - 152 47 -199 95814-2736 916.449.9095 Notes: d.u.=Dwelling Units Santa Rosa 'From Supplemental EIR for Dublin Ranch West Development,2005 1400 N.Dutton Avenue 2Proposed Wallis Ranch minus 2005 EIR Project Suite 21 *Daily Rate is for Residential Condominium/Townhouse(230);ITE lacks daily rate for Low-Rise Residendal Condo/Townhouse(23 1) Santa Rosa,CA 95401-4643 For Single-Family Detached Housing(210):Daily Trips=Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X)+2.72;AM Trips=T=0.70(X)+9.74; 707.575.5800 PM Trips=Ln(T)=0.90Ln(X)+0.51;where X=Number of Dwelling units and T=Average Vehicle Trip Ends. 707.575.5888 fax For Low-Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse(231):Daily Trips=Ln(T)=0.87Ln(X)+2.46;A.M.Trips=T=0.88(X)—49.70: P.M.Trips=No.of Dwelling Units*Average Rate(0.78),where X=Number of Dwelling units and T=Average Vehicle Trip Ends. tlkm@vt1km.com Source of trip rates for Proposed Wallis Ranch:ITE Trip Generation,91 Edition,2012 www.tikm.com Mr.Jerry Haag i jKM February 28, 2014 T r;nsr,c=t;,rc=n Page 2 Conclusion Based on the decrease in trip generation for the currently proposed Wallis Ranch development compared with the project analyzed in the 2005 SEIR, and the fact that the land use remains residential and the expected directional distribution of project trips would not change, the project- added traffic at intersections and roadway segments would be less than the 2005 SEIR analysis. As a result, TJKM concludes that no supplemental traffic impacts would result with the revised project. Very truly yours, Richard K. Haygood, P.E. Director,Traffic& Multimodal Studies cc: Shruti Shrivastava, TJKM