Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 90-16 Schaefer Ranch CEQA Addendum RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM AND A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 3 AND A PORTION OF UNIT 1 PROJECT, PLPA-2012-00013 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Discovery Builders), proposes to develop 18 develop single family homes and open space on approximately 17.30 acres known as Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 in the planned community known as Schaefer Ranch. The proposed development and applications are collectively known as the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the application includes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation on the 17.30 acre site from Estate Residential to 7.04 acres of Single Family Residential (SFR) and 10.26 acres of Open Space (OS); and WHEREAS, the application also includes consistent PD-Planned Development rezoning with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Site Development Review, and Vesting Tentative Map 8136; and WHEREAS, the Project site is located in the Western Extended Planning Area at westerly portion of the Schaefer Ranch planned community at the westerly terminus of Dublin Boulevard, north of Interstate 580 and west of Schaefer Ranch Road; and WHEREAS, the Project Site currently is subdivided as Lots 297 thru 302, Parcel R, and a portion of Parcel "Q" of Tract 6765; and WHEREAS, a portion of Unit 1 located at the end of Ridgeline Place was also included in the Addendum and is currently designated as Open Space; 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, development of the Project site was addressed in a 1996 EIR (Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 95033070, the "Schaefer Ranch EIR" or "1996 EIR"). The 1996 EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts that could apply to the Project; therefore, any Project approval must include a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The prior EIR is further described in the draft City Council resolution attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, based on the proposed Single Family Residential and Open Space land use designations the proposed Project remains less than the number of units initially analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR: 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 Page 1 of 3 Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated October 2015 describing the project and finding that the impacts of the proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the prior EIR. The Addendum and its supporting Initial Study is attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Addendum and its supporting Initial Study prepared by the City analyzed a 19 unit subdivision. The proposed revision from 19 lots to 18 lots would not change the analysis or conclusions of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 15-13 (incorporated herein by reference) recommending that the City Council not adopt the CEQA Addendum for the Project; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard. The City Council voted 4 to 1 to deny the project; and WHEREAS, on April 19, 2016, the City Council voted to reconsider the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016 the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing to reconsider the Project, at which time all interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report, dated June 7, 2016 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the Project and related Addendum for the City Council and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum and approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Addendum, as well as the prior EIR 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 project. These findings are based on information contained in the CEQA Addendum, the prior EIR, 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 EIR, 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 EIR, 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 2 of 3 adopted mitigation measures from the Schaefer Ranch EIR continue to apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 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 EIR. 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 EIR before approving the land use applications for the proposed Project. 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 Schaefer ranch Unit 3 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 7th day of June, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Biddle, Gupta, Hart, Wehrenberg, and Mayor Haubert NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None k Mayor ATTES .) „A, City Clerk Reso No. 90-16,Adopted 6-7-16, Item 6.1 3 of 3 SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 3 INITIAL STUDY! CEQA ADDENDUM Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner October 2015 Existing land uses adjacent to the overall Schaefer Ranch include vacant lands to the north and west (within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County), vacant lands and residential uses to the east and the I-580 freeway to the south. Properties south of I- 580 include the Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian facility and vacant lands within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. Project Description Background. The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and prezoning was approved by the City of Dublin in 1996. Subsequently, the Ranch was annexed into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. A vesting tentative subdivision map for the entire Schaefer Ranch property and a development agreement were approved by the City of Dublin in 1998. 1996 Project EIR. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1996 for the whole of the proposed Schaefer Ranch development. The project analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and related features: • A total of 474 residences, including a mix of estate residences, singe family detached dwellings and attached residential dwellings; • Retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail and office center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second, smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580; • Public and semi-public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a water storage tank and street rights-of-way; • Parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District trail, trail head facilities and related improvements. A private homeowners' association recreation facility was also approved; and • Approximately 89 acres of the Schaefer Ranch devoted to other non-buildable open spaces, including but not limited to wildlife habitat areas, drainage retention areas and a reconstructed creek corridor. Primary access is provided by the westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard and the construction of Schaefer Ranch Road, a north south arterial roadway that crosses under the I-580 freeway to connect to Dublin Canyon Road south of the freeway. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Tract 6765) was subsequently approved by the City of Dublin for 466 total lots on the Schaefer Ranch. The original approval also included extensive grading and re-contouring of the site and extension of utilities and services to support proposed uses. Significant portions of the Schaefer Ranch development have since been constructed. To date, the project developer has re-graded the Schaefer Ranch property, re-subdivided portions of the overall property into 302 lots and, extended Dublin Boulevard, constructed Schaefer Ranch Road, dedicated trails to the East Bay Regional Park City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The proposed project is a modification of a project already approved by the City-the Schaefer Ranch project. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch project were analyzed in an environmental impact report that was certified by the City in 1996 (Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 95033070 (the "Schaefer Ranch EIR" or "1996 EIR"). For the potentially significant impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR that apply to the proposed project, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are incorporated into this Initial Study by reference. Applicant Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC 4061 Port Chicago Highway, Suite H Concord CA 94520 Attn: Doug Chen, RCE, LS (925) 803- 2617 Project Location and Context The project analyzed in this document is a portion of the larger Schaefer Ranch development project, identified as Unit 3 of Schaefer Ranch. The overall Schaefer Ranch development contains approximately 500 acres of land located in the western portion of the City of Dublin and adjacent to the western boundary of the City Dublin. More specifically, Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the Schaefer Ranch in context with the City of Dublin and the nearby I-580 freeway. This Initial Study analyzes proposed land use changes that would affect two small sites comprising Schaefer Ranch Unit 3. One portion of the project (Subarea 1) is 17.30 acres of land along Schaefer Way, located west of the current cul-de-sc terminus of Dublin Boulevard. A second portion of the project (Subarea 2) involves a 1.14-acre parcel of land located at the western cul-de-sac terminus of Ridgeline Place. For the purposes of this Initial Study, these two Subareas are identified as the "project" or the "project site." The two component areas of the project site are shown on Exhibit 3. This exhibit identifies Subareas 1 and 2, described more fully below. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Existing land uses adjacent to the overall Schaefer Ranch include vacant lands to the north and west (within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County), vacant lands and residential uses to the east and the I-580 freeway to the south. Properties south of I- 580 include the Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian facility and vacant lands within the unincorporated portion of Alameda County. Project Description Background. The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and prezoning was approved by the City of Dublin in 1996. Subsequently, the Ranch was annexed into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. A vesting tentative subdivision map for the entire Schaefer Ranch property and a development agreement were approved by the City of Dublin in 1998. 1996 Project EIR. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified by the City of Dublin in 1996 for the whole of the proposed Schaefer Ranch development. The project analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and related features: • A total of 474 residences, including a mix of estate residences, singe family detached dwellings and attached residential dwellings; • Retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail and office center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second, smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580; • Public and semi-public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a water storage tank and street rights-of-way; • Parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District trail, trail head facilities and related improvements. A private homeowners' association recreation facility was also approved; and • Approximately 89 acres of the Schaefer Ranch devoted to other non-buildable open spaces, including but not limited to wildlife habitat areas, drainage retention areas and a reconstructed creek corridor. Primary access is provided by the westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard and the construction of Schaefer Ranch Road, a north south arterial roadway that crosses under the I-580 freeway to connect to Dublin Canyon Road south of the freeway. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (Tract 6765) was subsequently approved by the City of Dublin for 466 total lots on the Schaefer Ranch. The original approval also included extensive grading and re-contouring of the site and extension of utilities and services to support proposed uses. Significant portions of the Schaefer Ranch development have since been constructed. To date, the project developer has re-graded the Schaefer Ranch property, re-subdivided portions of the overall property into 302 lots and, extended Dublin Boulevard, constructed Schaefer Ranch Road, dedicated trails to the East Bay Regional Park City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 District, constructed a water storage tank and stormwater retention basins and completed major water and sewer lines. 2008 EIR Addendum. In 2008, the City approved an Addendum to the 1996 EIR for properties in Unit 2 of the Schaefer Ranch that included a General Plan Amendment, a vesting tentative subdivision map, a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement to delete the approved approximately 5.69-acre retail commercial site on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, 12 estate lots and 24 single-family lots on the south side of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of the retail commercial site. These uses were replaced with up to 140 single-family detached lots. The 2008 Addendum was approved by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 203-08, approved on November 4, 2008. The 2008 Addendum did not affect current or proposed land uses on the project site. Current development application. The proposed project includes two separate properties on the Schaefer Ranch property. These are identified as Subareas 1 and 2 on Exhibit 3. a) Subarea 1. The first portion of the project would include re-subdivision of portions of six (6) existing Estate Residential lots on 7.04 acres of the 17.30 acres of land located along the north and south sides of Schaefer Way at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is known as VTM 8136. Approval of the proposed project would result in the creation of nineteen (19) single-family residential lots (a net gain of 13 lots). Proposed lots would range in size from approximately 7007 gross square feet to approximately 28,644 gross square feet. One primary dwelling unit would be allowed per residential lot. Exhibit 4 shows the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. b) Subarea 2. A second part of the project would include creation of a new 1.14-acre residential lot at the terminus of Ridgeline Place and construction of a single- family dwelling on the lot (see Exhibit 5). Approval of a dwelling on this site would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezoning, a Site Development Permit and recordation of a Final Subdivision Map to create this lot. The required actions to approve the proposed project would include amending the Dublin General Plan and approval of a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Subarea 1. Additionally, new Tentative Subdivision Maps would be needed for Subarea 1. Future approvals of a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezone, a Site Development Review Permit and other actions would be required to allow construction of a dwelling on Subarea 2. If approved, the build-out number of lots on the entire Schaefer Ranch would increase by a total of 14 lots, which includes proposed development on Subareas 1 and 2. The total unit count would increase to 420 dwellings which is less than originally approved and fewer dwellings analyzed in the 1996 EIR, which was 474 residential lots and 10.7 City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 acres (gross) of commercial uses. The commercial use designation has been since deleted. Access and Circulation. No changes are proposed to the currently approved and constructed roadway system. Both Schaefer Way (a private road) and Ridgeline Place (a public road) are built and operational. As part of this application, the applicant is requesting relief from the provisions of Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 that require fair share payment towards a future traffic signal (EIR pp. 4-15, 4-22). The traffic signal requirement was based on projected signal warrants for near term and cumulative 2010 build-out traffic; however, circumstances have changed since the prior EIR in that build-out traffic levels do not meet signal warrants. By email dated October 16, 2014, the County Public Works Agency stated the developer no longer needs to make the fair share payment so long as the developer installed certain improvements, which the developer has agreed to do. Based on the changed circumstances in which a traffic signal is no longer warranted for cumulative traffic, deletion of the fair share payment obligation would not result in new or more severe significant impacts at the intersection beyond those identified in the 1996 EIR. Grading. All Subareas have been mass graded pursuant to a grading permit issued by the City of Dublin. Additional minor grading may be needed in order to create future house pads, access roads and easements. Trenching and excavation would also be required for underground utilities. Infrastructure. As identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, the project developer would provide a range of underground utilities to serve the proposed dwellings, including potable, wastewater, telecommunication, natural gas and electrical service. These facilities have been provided. Requested land use approvals. As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this project. Applications for development of Subarea 1 have been submitted; applications for development of Subarea 2 would be submitted in the future,but the proposed development is assumed for purposes of this Initial Study. These entitlements and approvals are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment: Existing General Plan land use designations on Subarea 1 have been requested to change from "Estate Residential" and "Open Space" to a combination of "Single Family Residential" and "Open Space." The General Plan is also proposed to be changed in the future from "Open Space" to "Single Family Residential" for Subarea 2. Exhibit 6 shows existing and proposed General Plan land use designations for these subareas. Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. A Stage 1 and 2 Rezoning and Development Plan is proposed for Subarea 1. A future Planned Development rezoning would be required for Subarea 2 City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 District, constructed a water storage tank and stormwater retention basins and completed major water and sewer lines. 2008 EIR Addendum. In 2008, the City approved an Addendum to the 1996 EIR for properties in Unit 2 of the Schaefer Ranch that included a General Plan Amendment, a vesting tentative subdivision map, a Planned Development rezoning with a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement to delete the approved approximately 5.69-acre retail commercial site on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, 12 estate lots and 24 single-family lots on the south side of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of the retail commercial site. These uses were replaced with up to 140 single-family detached lots. The 2008 Addendum was approved by Dublin City Council Resolution No. 203-08, approved on November 4, 2008. The 2008 Addendum did not affect current or proposed land uses on the project site. Current development application. The proposed project includes two separate properties on the Schaefer Ranch property. These are identified as Subareas 1 and 2 on Exhibit 3. a) Subarea 1. The first portion of the project would include re-subdivision of portions of six (6) existing Estate Residential lots on 7.04 acres of the 17.30 acres of land located along the north and south sides of Schaefer Way at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is known as VTM 8136. Approval of the proposed project would result in the creation of nineteen (19) single-family residential lots (a net gain of 13 lots). Proposed lots would range in size from approximately 7007 gross square feet to approximately 28,644 gross square feet. One primary dwelling unit would be allowed per residential lot. Exhibit 4 shows the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. b) Subarea 2. A second part of the project would include creation of a new 1.14-acre residential lot at the terminus of Ridgeline Place and construction of a single- family dwelling on the lot (see Exhibit 5). Approval of a dwelling on this site would require approval of a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezoning, a Site Development Permit and recordation of a Final Subdivision Map to create this lot. The required actions to approve the proposed project would include amending the Dublin General Plan and approval of a Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan for Subarea 1. Additionally, new Tentative Subdivision Maps would be needed for Subarea 1. Future approvals of a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezone, a Site Development Review Permit and other actions would be required to allow construction of a dwelling on Subarea 2. If approved, the build-out number of lots on the entire Schaefer Ranch would increase by a total of 14 lots, which includes proposed development on Subareas 1 and 2. The total unit count would increase to 420 dwellings which is less than originally approved and fewer dwellings analyzed in the 1996 EIR, which was 474 residential lots and 10.7 City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 acres (gross) of commercial uses. The commercial use designation has been since deleted. Access and Circulation. No changes are proposed to the currently approved and constructed roadway system. Both Schaefer Way (a private road) and Ridgeline Place (a public road) are built and operational. As part of this application, the applicant is requesting relief from the provisions of Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 that require fair share payment towards a future traffic signal (EIR pp. 4-15, 4-22). The traffic signal requirement was based on projected signal warrants for near term and cumulative 2010 build-out traffic; however, circumstances have changed since the prior EIR in that build-out traffic levels do not meet signal warrants. By email dated October 16, 2014, the County Public Works Agency stated the developer no longer needs to make the fair share payment so long as the developer installed certain improvements, which the developer has agreed to do. Based on the changed circumstances in which a traffic signal is no longer warranted for cumulative traffic, deletion of the fair share payment obligation would not result in new or more severe significant impacts at the intersection beyond those identified in the 1996 EIR. Grading. All Subareas have been mass graded pursuant to a grading permit issued by the City of Dublin. Additional minor grading may be needed in order to create future house pads, access roads and easements. Trenching and excavation would also be required for underground utilities. Infrastructure. As identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, the project developer would provide a range of underground utilities to serve the proposed dwellings, including potable, wastewater, telecommunication, natural gas and electrical service. These facilities have been provided. Requested land use approvals. As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as part of this project. Applications for development of Subarea 1 have been submitted; applications for development of Subarea 2 would be submitted in the future, but the proposed development is assumed for purposes of this Initial Study. These entitlements and approvals are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment: Existing General Plan land use designations on Subarea 1 have been requested to change from "Estate Residential" and "Open Space" to a combination of "Single Family Residential" and "Open Space." The General Plan is also proposed to be changed in the future from "Open Space" to "Single Family Residential" for Subarea 2. Exhibit 6 shows existing and proposed General Plan land use designations for these subareas. Planned Development Rezoning with related Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan. A Stage 1 and 2 Rezoning and Development Plan is proposed for Subarea 1. A future Planned Development rezoning would be required for Subarea 2 City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Site Development Review. An application for a Site Development Review permit has been filed for Subarea 1 to approve building architecture, materials, colors, landscaping, fencing and other design issues. Site Development Review approval is also required for the proposed future dwelling on Subarea 2. Tentative subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the two project areas. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 SAN PABLO Martinez BAY San Q 4 Concord Rafael Richmond Mill ED Valley Walnut Creek Berkeley Oakland seo San Francisco �/d neOa SAN San Leandro DUBLIN FRANCISCO � sea Daly S1) Cay Livermore BAY f1 Pleasanton Hayward IZR n Q San Mateo Fremont Newark 0 Half +_ Moon Bay Palo L Alto Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT o z o s a io miles CEQA ADDENDUM Site Development Review. An application for a Site Development Review permit has been filed for Subarea 1 to approve building architecture, materials, colors, landscaping, fencing and other design issues. Site Development Review approval is also required for the proposed future dwelling on Subarea 2. Tentative subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the two project areas. City of Dublin Page 6 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 SAN PABLO O Martinez 0 BAY San I , 4 Concord Rafael Richmond ill hk Mill Valley i Walnut m Creek Berkeley V O Oakland San Francisco �yan� a SAN San Leandro DUBLIN F R A N C I S C O _♦ seo Daly CJ C■ty Livermore B A Y CD n Pleasanton Hayward m V San Mateo Fremont n p n 6-411° Newark 0 Redwood City Half illillV- .1 _ Moon CD Bay Palo CO Alto o> CP a es V 7J0 Sunnyvale Santa Clara San Jose CI It Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT 0 2 4 6 8 10 miles CEQA ADDENDUM ■ J .----- LmT�N„N/ , [CITY OF SAN RAMON] �.� N. —•—.� c+ ' PARKS RESERVE FORCES \�,9�.p9 •�• • �� TRAINING AREA i 1 •E'`o • / `� 11 `� \ ,/_` ., 1`` FEDERAL REHbA.�TAI t \. o *prim° '/•� I I ( CORRE0T � CENTER ' �' ��,� V %rap ,t.,..3 .1, .,1 AN to Schaefer �;E `i 0 l` [t i/ a Ranch '�, I 41111011161,_,,�8`°� • �� a o a Project Zijoso ���� �s. .:� p v '.o (CITY OF PLEASANTON) / \ Exhibit 2 SCHAEFER RANCH DEVELOPMENT —•—•— City Limit CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT 0 04 02 3,4 ;m+� CEQA ADDENDUM �' `l I -_ -_ Subarea 2 :\�N _„ NJ -\\. / < r■ : NI;`T 1 (TRACT ,\ 1 \ Subarea 1 % 'I_ OoOO�° to `\ I l ���� °04 �00I000 � - ��; �' O4v II O a o Vie ��® �� off' VIVO,* �� --- - _ J �� 4i OoO>o 4,6 o• :46`40 ,. �y -j r ---- °ooia0000 - ` --- - ) j -- a ,t,sull. rte. - -:-:,..::::-e..-.4-..:11,-,,,-0.51.,„74!,,,,,iy": V ,_ SOURCE:lsakson&Assoc. Inc.. 7-19-2012 and 11-5-2014. C \ Exhibit 3 CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT PROJECT SUBAREAS CEQA ADDENDUM CST/Nry� A il •I, I \ (CIT'r OF SAN RAMON) I,I• �•�•- \ c -..._, c • 9 PARKS RESERVE FORCES IN . •.°....11", iblit TRAINING AREA 40.% 1 6 * * \‘‘‘ 41* 1111.0 I k. 044,,, 7 � I FEDERAL R6S'Ac ACTION �^ •. 11 `t!1 �� `� . �INSTIN L CENTER ' ���r, jr a . cl r PL. ' (CAMP PARKS) ' G.J..1 fl • n � Schaefer �� `♦ L ts .,7,2 Ranch MeJd �� D Project �� ` � . s. :�� ' �: v v 'Iv [CITY OF PLEASANTON] Exhibit 2 SCHAEFER RANCH DEVELOPMENT —•—••••-• City Limit CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT 0 LIz 3,1 CEQA ADDENDUM NI • Subarea 2 � '�, \\ ;. \ /, `\- \\ \\ .\ !!�, .. x•70 o- '''\ • \\ t ,' i t' UNIl' 1 (TRACT �`� N yv ,' ' X765) \\. ��/ yob_ 1 * : I \ � Subarea 1 ,414L14_ Wilier•0 9n�� ' ,.V If? 110100 ; ; 0Vid •evi ,, tOjo 441111,1 N oI®, Aa o 0 0� ► \\ • WO boo 4,4).144,404b4,,, „04,.."oo Q :- 1 .. ,- - ooia000 z / C- r� r/`4 ! y~ om` �4� SOURCE:lsakson&Assoc. Inc., 7-19-2012 and 11-5-2014. Exhibit 3 CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT PROJECT SUBAREAS CEQA ADDENDUM W \ \•. f S/TE— LEGEND_ 1 \ i G(JaJH A�--!".'PQHWAIY g��....-�..—_ __C.—_. EXISTING RoAD -- •- \,...., . .. . LP alA MIR.l _ VICINITY MAP La SNOOPS S(a(R xn osoraa uRaivl,rw '... LIY.AI 01St RIrl1ON 10 oull VOW a.4.41. II Al cMwr.UN REAL IMOtERIY 3110011 IN lilt URFSOII(glwl.� CE tR tlllOUN•0)0\TY OF ALAMEDA.STATE.OF 1 La SLOW ORAN a'.'SOL (AI Ir MNA. MORE PARTICULARLY r,00C11 1lv, As rfp1. .. - UFMI:WMTR)M'S M-.)\ a1 As 31RIWNON I MAI ,. -,-"' __�R �- •yT-.� OfIN.LOT KRxRLA / I .i RARER-FULD IN OIYR140F SLAPS AT OASES FFR rictosx di it RECORDS)ON NM'Wit A..10A7 IN TUE INPAwI .. '-\ - m r PDF.COI TTY R rcoRrl5R Or ALAMEDA. f _ _ _ - . PROPOSED xr rz>Fen1.1FaRRl.+. \ P IW?O 0020°" ----..— iI".A.ING:I.t ACRES OF LAMA MORE.OR LOSS. PARCEL AM 4 30 ACRES �j [ODOR M _ _ — _RAC , M*� 407 GENERAL NOTES: �� — �•`_ _` tor AMA ,. s.aRrR.iuvw WHOM IOW 0 MO LI.MC• AEI PORI.. t -- -s--..1,....7---..".‘ O,OU tat PAPA w I OS<mamas �s MO/1• • J-'A+l},, _1 Ir L,.,; rs. OTC 1 c^t l�9„•was A PC F fii° u ' . •• . sus uialmR OCSO Nm•aRA,m MN*SW Ram somas Raba .. i 1 t L,s's a,,,„,, .e'°N" F 4091 r .10 411 .2' A +' ` - - o arn,: «rw SW R,xo. mmcr P T •.t s MRU.Y ,3;R 1 - MOO WO WALL RLSCOOIAL RRK4 VIIIi o s 4�2s 4l9 yoga n LOA LOAM a1Rtt aw.wmns.. +m R 11 K S.A. -� MOM mx.c w,wreR wo,ra Lauer IL COROSI/9 t j L .RA FARMS: 0 ole..A t".7 m NO ma-u. wk. .,. _ .;."-• : a, a me/0519 MOW a.011/01045 AC. ��" � , � A RTx.Rn Iwrs� 1RSOOenu OM N Isar.TR1RR xor A PRIp ' _ !rM-__ -_- n a.s �^T 4 8 4 t 7 +.'Y_ ..._.__—.,... — n Auto DR RE OmxAlm m 0400) \ 1.e).°., .�r ..l 7."`w RIBS -' -xlE -- .-. _ _ - ass Awes PO OS OraA,(R moue) aC .1 °R.s .S s .rRR 14 '. WORN n(a(c LOA Or Mr POI) yy 8g .. \ + r 43g e414 ,, }50,-) _/ IMMO LOT M ,R.TNA w LOT W.IM C 12a5Z< e:• :. ,\ - is / • : '..j f ;e„ / M 04. r «T A a 030100 OM ON 10S 11031.011, ARM 1�i,l[ ",YA WM. A. RRRR MM.TO j -: suit SO LAMA. A 1/111310s M ma '�7 PARCEL BB' 3.32 ACRE$£ • 1` l IL LW 45 MALL NAYS oo"Oa'.A.rww..l..ao,AAT A� wR ..we) LOOM._,R A,m.R a.RMl SOURCE:lsakson&Assoc.Inc., 11-5-2014 Exhibit 4 CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT TRACT MAP (Subarea 1) CEDA ADDENDUM a ` 69 ' ' -�� N � >ENE r ��\' i ' ��__ p�rA E{1S . A'f V LOT` 'i. \ 1061 )O . Nt.47 71' 1 2 `^!KW o 7'-',7-=-....____-'L 0 L,OL \ _--_.—. h -J(\\\._.:::• .1.9t,70.,',../1 -''. - -r'` 1�____\,,,_ ' 1 ?C;:!711i,L. O O 70_A �� 5 . "' FX LOT ;L c _ 1'I, 1• vAin ` TO 8.:; U ` '' 70 •LOr. N . NEW LOT 70-A LOT -.. . _ I •\\L-...1. \ EX.~SOP OF SANK �I Oti v� ,y4-4,,....4:0.? ' v • Q O .>0 � ^\p<Oi 4'9' i 1 . . '0 O.e I F0FND. \ \ Eli. LOT 70 - -- --•- NEW LOT 70 1 0 10 7 �U � 2r. --� NEW LOT 70-A — ...1 . • (eyes.) \ /,,, ` SOURCE.Isakson&Assoc. Inc., 8-1-2012. Exhibit 5 CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED FINAL MAP SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT (Subarea 2) CEQA ADDENDUM zr.., --C S/TE—, '-.: / '\>\-____4,_,i `J SCHAEFE \ \ WP.T LEGEND - 44-.V) -C- .. EXISTING 0--------:-4-Nra M y Ste• __ _..> = \IL.- • pIR HrWIAM, VICINITY MAP CS SWAM SEAM - - . Nn CS SIOW CONS u,,,,,,n,1NA •' 1'n1.TAV(.RI r 1'ION u oxM (s.�s01. I I 11101 LGCIAN!NEAT 1VFUPiMIT SIIUAIF IN De OCT 01.CA 81 III GRAN (A•O so. CALIFOR AIO MORE�IANTICIII..ARTY r I(AcITmr.)or• FOLLOWS CSU.g,., - pun OM UEMI.PORTNM•SA I i),,,,,,,AS MA1W■UN 1NA1' n c . w .n / \� .1 -) soRrivisloN MAP LAI'SLED)MI1('MS-SCHAOP)A GNAW LOT ANNAN(SPICY) _•.�• \ _ `i(1-1 N,wCH'H1EU IN BOOK )OF MAPS AT:'AUEt1 ' IMMIX.il,REIT WDFO ON NIARI II A•10117 IN WE \ 117111,Or rIW 1.01,- 'A WOMAN Sr Al.AIATOA. PROPOSED STATE OF CALIFORNIA. itRU119010oApANS ----.-- CON IAI V1Nf.1..>4CN1:]IN,LAND,MIND:ON LLS. LA ut - PARCEL AY-.4.30 ACRES '-1 \ Larson LNN "'` 1 NLW 407 GENERAL NOTES: ,m rAAWa f KT LOT q ,1Aa v i o.Nn Ruvo souna uc ACM NA wtA a mmao Aver p Am J.•A Y3 l _1 I ■n rAyO IAN / fO 0—;_0.L i C—* CA-wl)4R: [WNW S ASOOA OW SS K • '- 3. sou apmE aQ5qw+asmARW 'AWM.Marc NA 1 29g* 407• 400 ,F 4097 7 0 • - - S NAln,: W M. SAN NANA MAMAS AMC, {[SAN 4.14 ,, ..u0 411 s 9=+ '7 i c wss S e a.. : Aw c MINN •. AA"ANA OM. all NANa sum=AMA• h•- `.- ` rN v USES MATS N 1T SOW. ""''"""'° ••I".>?, IN ,412? 413 1sN n WAN wsWNRw A Eason/AN. TANA.NANDI Po.CAM ,o.sxu YAW) 1' R RruMSR RANO1 to mASMlnur�s wNs i 1 c -- I: _ n .AAms. +A-.77.-col pm.).ow con w over � = s.Y^ a..: ►1 7-1..."'--Z-,, -;''1�43io* 'T' _` _ r I). Ante: wrA-N.a AO. �. _1-.\— }S - - _ A R 1. I L T r.0A0)m MOSS VOBW'•4 Oil NOS K'. L aA/ �.S j --� } .. TOM.116 WM AFmOIRLL LMR III AA•OMSK 1O)A MST) -� 1.. ;..�1°S°.L.,*r.ro_.�.,. 418 y - __ w.s.R ]]++ _ 4 9 4l7 4� --_� _j- �"'---=--- A AM.ON K WOCATo w TA A 1 "AC 1)`t ���) 23RT___ _wLms I+J NQ r lu AO16 IA IA MACAW AMAA) A S,N f' - 0 mow Lora IA:Ow o NA ADS) sC - < TX/7;47T y y 44 8v / (Lai As) e OLmY _ y �°i3q i4NM Sr•• iM1� \ S \ s , / ACt.MC MORA MR.MC SANT TO At Wan/ L / - UNa4�l1 rm NRAw.s.1l I A S Mom Mo —�7 PARCEL BB 3.32 ACRE a ; t , / N.1. ANA AM WINS MOUNT w SAMAR PAWLS Or LOS DT-3M OT MALT OASS W. OM FAR Rm APO NCO a PAW CO MS MOAIM me -_ SOT s A IMMO SWELL SOURCE.lsakson&Assoc.inc.. 11-5-2014 Exhibit 4 CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT TRACT MAP (Subarea 1) CEOA ADDENDUM ! �• CO > 69 �\\} • o ,�. DLO/'7 . , \ \\�..`';■ _ �( 1 8 \ 0c 10-A L' �-- r 1 • Ak•LOT 70_A -`•Nty1 ,r llr 1 ^.11.7.W.-0 to, 70t _Lkv 1', . \\__ • l I ti �-^7go`ai j 3` 0 0 V '� 70 e� SU Ex L�T170 LDr__ - / '' S. ` = eE" 'r w, ' _ Rf LpACA�D z NEW LOT ?0.— LQS LINE /. ,�w Of SANK \ \ -7.-.— 'Ex-SOP !yfi,1 �ti ■ c SO • 1frfND: ,\ 24,4y- EX. LO1' 70 - -- -•- 3 o 10. v 4o ''1 7 � NEN'LOT 70 NEW LOT 70-A I -"-- • rm rear 1 \ �.‘ SOURCE.Isakson&Assoc. Inc., 8-1-2012. Exhibit 5 CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED FINAL MAP SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT (Subarea 2) CEQA ADDENDUM 1. Existing:Open Space Proposed:Single Family Residential 111 c li - ' IJNI, 1 (TRACT \ �.,, / -''._- �ea65) Existing: state Residential 10 voo t)4rn 0/„--:_:-.---‘' 'Y t \ +Open Space O O� O \ I i 1 Proposed:Single Family �����000 ��oOl�O\� >2-- i 4, r. �l 1 Residential+Open Space �ar,� '' a v �oo�� � 044) rah,.Poo o 4.,4; r ���00 �0O�oo0 eo 'ooa� i \ VOA. W/P ,lor Vs" jj—__ ; \'. ' ';---- ---i irtiwr7,=_-_-::: ___-__ , 411% l NNN t - V- '7. �, '' mss, _`- teaF AT ' a,1s, ' .`!: 7— SOURCE lsakson&Assoc. Inc., 7-19-2012. Exhibit 6 CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CEQA ADDENDUM 1. Project description: Resubdivision of portions of Schaefer Ranch Tract 6765 to create 13 additional residential lots on Subarea 1 of Unit 3. One other residential lot would also be created (Subarea 2). Land use entitlements applicable to Subarea 1 include a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Final Maps. A future General Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review and Final Map would be required for Subarea 2. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Michael Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project locations: Subarea 1: Along Schaefer Way, west of the cul-de-sac terminus of Dublin Boulevard; Subarea 2: terminus of Ridgeline Place 5. Project sponsor: Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC, attn: Doug Chen 6. General Plan designations: Existing: Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du./ac.) & Open Space (Subarea 1 only) Open Space (Subareas 2) Proposed: Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du./ac.) & Open Space (Subarea 1) Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du./ac.) (Subarea 2) 7. Zoning: Existing: PD-Planned Development- Estate Residential & Open Space (Subarea 1); PD-Open Space (Subarea 2) Proposed: PD-Planned Development 8. Public agency required approvals: • Approval of Amendment to the General Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of PD-Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin) • Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) • Approval of building permits (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 i. \ Existing:Open Space ` Proposed:Single Family Residential i N _ I . \ \/ ^ - C 1 I 'U NA' 1 (TRACT ', ;.� � i ";• 6-76,5) --• N. / /O - 1\ ,= - Existing:Estate Residential J1 -- vOOV� hh Blifd � 't - - +Open Space ����,©40 eOw -;r ' j Proposed:Single Family �'S� 4 oO oo\� ,:.__-_ •,,z,,,,, 1 i., 1 Residential+Open Space v l��� \ " V414,V4fli 1174ip 46 *NetraNihr' \ ---- - -1 ' :-------------- -:,:-• „- �'°0ovao►o°° ! i b 1 i4 i -- , p r,k SOURCE. Isakson&Assoc.Inc.. 7-19-2012. Exhibit 6 CITY OF DUBLIN PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS CUM ADDENDUM 1. Project description: Resubdivision of portions of Schaefer Ranch Tract 6765 to create 13 additional residential lots on Subarea 1 of Unit 3. One other residential lot would also be created (Subarea 2). Land use entitlements applicable to Subarea 1 include a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps and Final Maps. A future General Plan Amendment, Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review and Final Map would be required for Subarea 2. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Michael Porto Consulting Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project locations: Subarea 1: Along Schaefer Way, west of the cul-de-sac terminus of Dublin Boulevard; Subarea 2: terminus of Ridgeline Place 5. Project sponsor: Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC, attn: Doug Chen 6. General Plan designations: Existing: Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du./ac.) & Open Space (Subarea 1 only) Open Space (Subareas 2) Proposed: Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du./ac.) & Open Space (Subarea 1) Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du./ac.) (Subarea 2) 7. Zoning: Existing: PD-Planned Development- Estate Residential &Open Space (Subarea 1); PD-Open Space (Subarea 2) Proposed: PD-Planned Development 8. Public agency required approvals: • Approval of Amendment to the General Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of PD-Planned Development rezoning with related Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin) • Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) • Approval of building permits (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Approval of a Grading Permit(City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 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 a Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Approval of a Grading Permit (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 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 a Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. Signature: " 4t-L) �J Date: �''(L((r Printed Name: u, vrN I For: of 0 Jo L City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers 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 pP p g "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "No New Impact," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. Signature: 1'v,4v (c. (y Date: ('(2-rt( Printed Name: e 0(4.. 1, For: 6.41 of 0,4C City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers 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). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identity and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "No New Impact," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to 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 18 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact). Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 1. Aesthetics. Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,rock X outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (Source: 3) d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day o X nighttime views in the area? (Source: 3) 2. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as show on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 1, 3) b)Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Act contract? (1) X c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC Sec. 12220(g),timberland (as defined in X PRC Sec.4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)? (Source: 1,3) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (1, 3) X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of X farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use? (Source: 1, 3) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 18 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources at end of checklist used to determine each potential impact). Note: A full discussion of each item is found Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ following the checklist. Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,rock X outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 1, 3) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? (Source: 3) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day o X nighttime views in the area? (Source: 3) 2. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,as show on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 1,3) b)Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use or a Williamson Act contract? (1) X c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of forestland (as defined by PRC Sec. 12220(g),timberland (as defined in X PRC Sec.4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined in PRC Sec. 51104 (g)? (Source: 1, 3) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (1, 3) X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of X farmland to a non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to a non-forest use? (Source: 1, 3) City of Dublin Page 19 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than I Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 3.Air Quality (Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,5) X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 1,4) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (1,4) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? (3) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (3) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, X sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,3) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,3) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including but not limited to marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (1,2,3) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or X impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (3) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (4) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other X approved local,regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 4) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 1) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1) X 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 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault? (Source: 1,4) _ T ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1,4) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (Source: 1,4) iv) Landslides? (Source: 1,4) _ X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 1,4) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than i Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 3.Air Quality (Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 1,5) X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air X quality violation? (Source: 1,4) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (1,4) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial X pollutant concentrations? (3) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (3) 4.Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, X sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans,policies or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,3) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (1,3) c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act X (including but not limited to marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (1,2,3) City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact! Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or X impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (3) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (4) f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other X approved local,regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 4) 5.Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource X pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 1) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic X feature? (Source: 1) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (1) X 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 Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State X Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault? (Source: 1,4) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (1,4) X iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including X liquefaction? (Source: 1,4) iv) Landslides? (Source: 1,4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of X topsoil? (Source: 1,4) City of Dublin Page 21 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in X on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (4) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 4) e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for wastewater disposal? (4) 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either X directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? (4) b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or X regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use or disposal of hazardous materials? (1, 3) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous into the environment? (3) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances,or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 1, 3) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 X and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (4) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or X public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 4) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? (Source: 4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (Source: 1,4) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (2,3) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? (Source: 1,2) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the X local groundwater table level (e.g.the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 1,2) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in X on-and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (4) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code X (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 4) e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers X are not available for wastewater disposal? (4) 7.Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either X directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? (4) b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of X reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8.Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, X use or disposal of hazardous materials? (1, 3) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the X release of hazardous into the environment? (3) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances,or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 1,3) City of Dublin Page 22 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec.65962.5 X and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?(4) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or X public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 4) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the X project area? (Source: 4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? (Source: 1,4) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (2, 3) 9.Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste X discharge requirements? (Source: 1,2) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the X local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Source: 1,2) City of Dublin Page 23 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?(Source: 1,2) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas,including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 2) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 1,2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? (Source: 1,2) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map? (Source: 1,4) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 1,4) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,and death involving X flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 1,2) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? X 10.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 3) X City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New impact With Impact Impact Mitigation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, , policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but X not limited to the general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,2,4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (Source: 1,2,4) 11. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to X the region and the residents of the state? (1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific X plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) 12.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in X the general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (Source: 1,3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X existing levels without the project? (1) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (1) X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport X or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (4) City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or X river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site?(Source: 1,2) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas,including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 1, 2) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 1,2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X quality? (Source: 1,2) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood X delineation map? (Source: 1,4) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood X flows? (Source: 1,4) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,and death involving X flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 1,2) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami or mudflow? X 10.Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1,3) X City of Dublin Page 24 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, , policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but X not limited to the general plan,specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,2,4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? (Source: 1,2,4) 11. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to X the region and the residents of the state? (1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific X plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) 12.Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in X the general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (1,3) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or X groundborne noise levels? (Source: 1,3) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X existing levels without the project? (1) d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (1) X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport X or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (4) City of Dublin Page 25 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ I Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (4) 13.Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly (for X example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (1,3) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (1,3) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing X elsewhere? (Source: 1,3) 14.Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Source: 1,2) Fire protection? X Police protection? I X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities X 15. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1,2) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 1,2) City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 16.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the X circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation,including mass transit and all non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? (Source: 1,2) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level of service and travel X demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?_(Source: 1,2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels X or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 1,4) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm equipment? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2) X f) Conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the X performance of safety of such facilities? (1) 17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? (Source: 2) City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people X residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (4) 13. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly (for X example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (1,3) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (I,3) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing X elsewhere? (Source: 1,3) 14.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,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Source: 1,2) Fire protection? X Police protection? I X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities X 15. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 1,2) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 1,2) City of Dublin Page 26 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation 16.Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the X circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation,including mass transit and all non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit? (Source: 1,2) b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including but not limited to, level of service and travel X demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?_(Source: 1,2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels X or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 1,4) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous X intersections) or incompatible uses,such as farm equipment? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2) X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the X performance of safety of such facilities? (1) 17. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality X Control Board? (Source: 2) i City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than I No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2) c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of X l which could cause significant environmental effects? (2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water X entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 2) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 18.Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to X eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than ; No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Schaefer Ranch Final EIR 2. Discussion with City staff or service provider 3. Site Visit 4. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following EIR was used in the preparation of this Initial Study: "Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment" WPM Planning Team, April 1996, SCH #95033070. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR which was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project of which the proposed project is a part. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains mitigation measures which apply to this project. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. The Schaefer Ranch EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study pursuant to the standards in CEQA Guideline Section 15150. A copy of this EIR is available to the public for review at the Dublin Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA during normal business hours. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than No Impact/ Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (2) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? (2) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water X entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (2) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 2) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes X and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to X eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Potentially Less Than Less than i No Impact! Significant Significant Significant No New Impact With Impact Impact Mitigation b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" X means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects X on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Schaefer Ranch Final EIR 2. Discussion with City staff or service provider 3. Site Visit 4. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following EIR was used in the preparation of this Initial Study: "Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment" WPM Planning Team, April 1996, SCH #95033070. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR which was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project of which the proposed project is a part. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains mitigation measures which apply to this project. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. The Schaefer Ranch EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study pursuant to the standards in CEQA Guideline Section 15150. A copy of this EIR is available to the public for review at the Dublin Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA during normal business hours. City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts of the project which were not evaluated in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a mix of rugged ridges and canyons, woodland, open grasslands and rock outcroppings. Pursuant to previous approvals granted by the City of Dublin, portions of the overall Schaefer Ranch property have been graded and recontoured to accommodate residential development allowed pursuant to the Dublin General Plan, zoning and other land use entitlements. Although a substantial portion of the Schaefer Ranch property has been graded, other portions have either been preserved as permanent open space or open space preserves have been created on the site to replace special-status species habitat that has been impacted. No trees, rock outcroppings or other natural features exist on any of the subareas. Subarea 2 provides views of undeveloped hillsides within the unincorporated portions of Alameda County west of Schaefer Ranch from the terminus of Ridgeline Place. Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of Schaefer Ranch. Several light sources exist within the project area due to the presence of streetlights and building lights, although no light sources are located on any of the two Subareas. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identifies significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 5A identified a significant impact with regard to alteration of the site character. This impact noted extensive landform alteration on the Ranch, including ridgeline removal, filling of canyons and creation of an urban landscape. Mitigation Measure 5A.1 requires approval of a subsequent grading plan for the property that relies on matching natural contours to the extent feasible, limitations on the extent of grading and preservation of existing trees. Mitigation measure 5.A.2 requires approval of a master landscape plan for each phase of the project, with special provisions for visually sensitive areas, use of appropriate plant materials adjacent to natural open space areas, use of plants to screen buildings and development of a long-term landscape maintenance program. • Impact 5B noted a significant impact of proposed project construction on the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park and I-580 freeway south of the site. Development of the project site would change the visual character from both of these viewpoints. Mitigation Measure 5.B.1 requires planting of landscaping, placement of berms City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 of the project which were not evaluated in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a mix of rugged ridges and canyons, woodland, open grasslands and rock outcroppings. Pursuant to previous approvals granted by the City of Dublin, portions of the overall Schaefer Ranch property have been graded and recontoured to accommodate residential development allowed pursuant to the Dublin General Plan, zoning and other land use entitlements. Although a substantial portion of the Schaefer Ranch property has been graded, other portions have either been preserved as permanent open space or open space preserves have been created on the site to replace special-status species habitat that has been impacted. No trees, rock outcroppings or other natural features exist on any of the subareas. Subarea 2 provides views of undeveloped hillsides within the unincorporated portions of Alameda County west of Schaefer Ranch from the terminus of Ridgeline Place. Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of Schaefer Ranch. Several light sources exist within the project area due to the presence of streetlights and building lights, although no light sources are located on any of the two Subareas. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch FIR identifies significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 5A identified a significant impact with regard to alteration of the site character. This impact noted extensive landform alteration on the Ranch, including ridgeline removal, filling of canyons and creation of an urban landscape. Mitigation Measure 5A.1 requires approval of a subsequent grading plan for the property that relies on matching natural contours to the extent feasible, limitations on the extent of grading and preservation of existing trees. Mitigation measure 5.A.2 requires approval of a master landscape plan for each phase of the project, with special provisions for visually sensitive areas, use of appropriate plant materials adjacent to natural open space areas, use of plants to screen buildings and development of a long-term landscape maintenance program. • Impact 5B noted a significant impact of proposed project construction on the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park and I-580 freeway south of the site. Development of the project site would change the visual character from both of these viewpoints. Mitigation Measure 5.B.1 requires planting of landscaping, placement of berms City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 and use of setbacks to substantially reduce the impact of the project from the 1- 580 freeway and the Rowell Ranch facility. Mitigation Measure 5.B.2 requires that future site grading be accomplished to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation Measure 5.B.3 requires the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City for the commercial component of the project to ensure that future structures are screened from view and signs are controlled. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or more significant impacts than identified in the 1996 EIR regarding scenic vistas. Both subareas are in areas assumed for development in the 1996 EIR and thus are not part of a scenic vista from offsite or onsite public vantage points. A proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning would convert Subarea 2 from an open space designation to a residential designation that would allow construction of one single family dwelling. The lot is located between two similarly sized residential lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. Redesignating Subarea 2 from open space to residential use would somewhat reduce public views to open spaces to the west, but views would still be partially available even with construction of a home under applicable single family development standards. There are also other, more expansive public views to the west. Because of the location of the lot in relation to neighboring lots and the limited views from the cul-de-sac, the proposed project impact would not be substantial. A potential condition of project approval will require that the future residence on this site be constructed immediately behind the existing dwelling on Ridgeline Place to allow for a scenic corridor of undeveloped lands west of the site. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic vistas than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? No New Impact. The two subareas have been fine graded as part of the mass grading of the overall Schaefer Ranch. None of the sites are located within view of a state scenic highway (I-580) and none contain significant scenic resources, including but not limited to major rock outcroppings, major stands of trees or bodies of water. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic resources than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project would include replacing vacant estate residential lots with single-family dwellings (Subarea 1) and a vacant open space lot with a single-family dwelling (Subarea 2). The 1996 EIR analyzed the impact of altering the entire Schaefer Ranch from a rural area to a more urbanized development. The overall type and character of land uses included the proposed project would have approximately the same impacts on Subarea 1 as the current General Plan residential land use designations. Subarea 2 has already been graded for residential development. No new or more severe significant impacts would City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 occur with regard to degradation of the scenic character of the project area than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. Both Subareas are vacant and contain no light sources. Construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights as well as new housing and yard lights. The 1996 EIR analyzed light and glare impacts on residential uses across Schaefer Ranch, and identified significant impacts where commercial or public facilities would be located near residences. No commercial or lighted public facilities are near the Subareas so there would be no impact. The added light sources in Subarea 1 would be in an area assumed for residential development in the 1996 EIR so would cause no new impact. The added light sources for Subarea 2 would be from a single home and would be integrated into an existing residential neighborhood. The proposed single dwelling would not have the potential to generate significant light or glare. Under these circumstances, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The Schaefer Ranch, including the two Subareas, was historically used for agricultural production and a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract was in effect on the Schaefer Ranch at the time the 1996 EIR was prepared and certified.Since then, the Williamson Act Contract no longer exists on the Schaefer Ranch. The Ranch is no longer in agricultural production and has been substantially converted to residential uses as envisioned in the Dublin General Plan. No forests or forestry production exist on either Subarea. The Schaefer Ranch site is zoned Planned Development, which is not an agricultural zoning district. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR noted that the project site was identified as a farmland with only grazing importance, not prime farmland, due to the relatively steep topography of the Schaefer Ranch property. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following less-than-significant impacts associated with agricultural resources: Impact 3.5A, discontinuance of on-site agricultural uses, Impact 3.5B, loss of on-site farmland and Impact 3.5C, cancellation of a Williamson Act contract on the property. Impact 3.5D was identified as a potentially significant impact. This impact noted impacts on adjoining agricultural lands adjacent to the Schaefer Ranch. These impacts included predatory dogs from suburban dwellings harassing livestock and odor impacts from grazing and livestock keeping onto proposed dwellings. Mitigation Measure 3-12 required disclosure of ongoing grazing for future project residents. Mitigation Measure 3-13 required enforcement of leash laws for dogs.Mitigation City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 and use of setbacks to substantially reduce the impact of the project from the I- 580 freeway and the Rowell Ranch facility. Mitigation Measure 5.B.2 requires that future site grading be accomplished to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation Measure 5.B.3 requires the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City for the commercial component of the project to ensure that future structures are screened from view and signs are controlled. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? No New Impact. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would result in no new or more significant impacts than identified in the 1996 EIR regarding scenic vistas. Both subareas are in areas assumed for development in the 1996 EIR and thus are not part of a scenic vista from offsite or onsite public vantage points. A proposed General Plan Amendment and Planned Development rezoning would convert Subarea 2 from an open space designation to a residential designation that would allow construction of one single family dwelling. The lot is located between two similarly sized residential lots at the end of a cul-de-sac. Redesignating Subarea 2 from open space to residential use would somewhat reduce public views to open spaces to the west, but views would still be partially available even with construction of a home under applicable single family development standards. There are also other, more expansive public views to the west. Because of the location of the lot in relation to neighboring lots and the limited views from the cul-de-sac, the proposed project impact would not be substantial. A potential condition of project approval will require that the future residence on this site be constructed immediately behind the existing dwelling on Ridgeline Place to allow for a scenic corridor of undeveloped lands west of the site. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic vistas than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? No New Impact. The two subareas have been fine graded as part of the mass grading of the overall Schaefer Ranch. None of the sites are located within view of a state scenic highway (I-580) and none contain significant scenic resources, including but not limited to major rock outcroppings, major stands of trees or bodies of water. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic resources than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? No New Impact. The proposed project would include replacing vacant estate residential lots with single-family dwellings (Subarea 1) and a vacant open space lot with a single-family dwelling (Subarea 2). The 1996 EIR analyzed the impact of altering the entire Schaefer Ranch from a rural area to a more urbanized development. The overall type and character of land uses included the proposed project would have approximately the same impacts on Subarea 1 as the current General Plan residential land use designations. Subarea 2 has already been graded for residential development. No new or more severe significant impacts would City of Dublin Page 32 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 occur with regard to degradation of the scenic character of the project area than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Create light or glare? No New Impact. Both Subareas are vacant and contain no light sources. Construction of the proposed project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights as well as new housing and yard lights. The 1996 EIR analyzed light and glare impacts on residential uses across Schaefer Ranch, and identified significant impacts where commercial or public facilities would be located near residences. No commercial or lighted public facilities are near the Subareas so there would be no impact. The added light sources in Subarea 1 would be in an area assumed for residential development in the 1996 EIR so would cause no new impact. The added light sources for Subarea 2 would be from a single home and would be integrated into an existing residential neighborhood. The proposed single dwelling would not have the potential to generate significant light or glare. Under these circumstances, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources Environmental Setting The Schaefer Ranch, including the two Subareas, was historically used for agricultural production and a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract was in effect on the Schaefer Ranch at the time the 1996 EIR was prepared and certified. Since then, the Williamson Act Contract no longer exists on the Schaefer Ranch. The Ranch is no longer in agricultural production and has been substantially converted to residential uses as envisioned in the Dublin General Plan. No forests or forestry production exist on either Subarea. The Schaefer Ranch site is zoned Planned Development, which is not an agricultural zoning district. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR noted that the project site was identified as a farmland with only grazing importance, not prime farmland, due to the relatively steep topography of the Schaefer Ranch property. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following less-than-significant impacts associated with agricultural resources: Impact 3.5A, discontinuance of on-site agricultural uses, Impact 3.5B, loss of on-site farmland and Impact 3.5C, cancellation of a Williamson Act contract on the property. Impact 3.5D was identified as a potentially significant impact. This impact noted impacts on adjoining agricultural lands adjacent to the Schaefer Ranch. These impacts included predatory dogs from suburban dwellings harassing livestock and odor impacts from grazing and livestock keeping onto proposed dwellings. Mitigation Measure 3-12 required disclosure of ongoing grazing for future project residents. Mitigation Measure 3-13 required enforcement of leash laws for dogs. Mitigation City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Measure 3-14 required disclosure to future homeowners of the presence of flies and odors from agricultural and livestock keeping. Mitigation Measure 3-15 required installation of fencing around grazing areas. 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 us, including conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts? No New Impact. The overall Schaefer Ranch project site has been graded for urban uses pursuant to current General Plan land use designations and current zoning. No agricultural uses or zoning remain on the site and the Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement formerly on the site has been terminated. No new or more significant impacts would therefore occur with regard to agricultural resources beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The project applicant will be required to comply with mitigation measures included in the 1996 EIR, including: providing notifications to future homeowners regarding protection of livestock (Mitigation Measure 3- 12) and the presence of nearby agricultural operations (Mitigation Measure 3-14). Appropriate fencing to protect on-going livestock grazing is also required per Mitigation Measure 3-15. No agricultural operations exist on any of the subareas. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR are anticipated. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No forest land exists on the two Subareas and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the development of the Schaefer Ranch. Applicable air quality impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 12A identified a significant impact with regard to temporary increases in dust and particulate emissions during earthmoving operations. Mitigation Measure 12.A1 required implementation of dust control measures during site City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 grading earth moving and excavation operations to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Such measures included were not limited to frequent watering of graded areas, limiting speeds of construction vehicles on the site and sweeping of public streets. • Impact 12B found that emissions from construction vehicles would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.B.1, which required limited idling of construction equipment and reduction of grading activities during period of poor air quality, reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. • Impact 12 D identified a significant impact from regional pollutant emissions in the form of increased vehicle trips to and from the project. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 12.D.1, implement control measures that are specified in attainment plans, and 12.D.2, provide physical facilities in the project design reduced regional emissions but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact was therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. • Impact 12E noted a potentially significant impact with regard to emission of local carbon monoxide. Based on the analysis in the EIR, emission of carbon monoxide was found to be below threshold levels and was a less-than-significant impact. • Impact 12F, on-site fuel combustion, was identified as a potentially significant impact and adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.F.1 reduced this impact to a less- than-significant impact. This mitigation restricted installation of on-site fireplaces or stoves to either gas burning units or units that have been EPA-approved. Conventional open hearth fireplaces were not allowed. • Impact 12G included a significant impact from miscellaneous dust sources leaving the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.G.1, that required adherence to the Bay Area Air Quality Management fugitive dust rules, reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project is required to adhere to these existing mitigation measures and current air quality regulations enforced by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan is based on population and growth assumptions projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). For the proposed project, the applicant is requesting a modification in the type of residential units. As noted in the Project Description section of this Initial Study, under the proposed project the overall number of dwellings on the overall Schaefer Ranch site would be 420 units which would be less than the project originally approved by the City of Dublin and analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 units). Vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be slightly less than s analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see analysis in the Traffic and Transportation section of City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Measure 3-14 required disclosure to future homeowners of the presence of flies and odors from agricultural and livestock keeping. Mitigation Measure 3-15 required installation of fencing around grazing areas. 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 us, including conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts? No New Impact. The overall Schaefer Ranch project site has been graded for urban uses pursuant to current General Plan land use designations and current zoning. No agricultural uses or zoning remain on the site and the Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement formerly on the site has been terminated. No new or more significant impacts would therefore occur with regard to agricultural resources beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The project applicant will be required to comply with mitigation measures included in the 1996 EIR, including: providing notifications to future homeowners regarding protection of livestock (Mitigation Measure 3- 12) and the presence of nearby agricultural operations (Mitigation Measure 3-14). Appropriate fencing to protect on-going livestock grazing is also required per Mitigation Measure 3-15. No agricultural operations exist on any of the subareas. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR are anticipated. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to a non forest use? No forest land exists on the two Subareas and no impact would result with respect to this topic. e) Involve other changes which, due to their location or nature, could result of forest land to a non forest use? See item "d," above. 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the development of the Schaefer Ranch. Applicable air quality impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 12A identified a significant impact with regard to temporary increases in dust and particulate emissions during earthmoving operations. Mitigation Measure 12.A1 required implementation of dust control measures during site City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 grading earth moving and excavation operations to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Such measures included were not limited to frequent watering of graded areas, limiting speeds of construction vehicles on the site and sweeping of public streets. • Impact 12B found that emissions from construction vehicles would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.B.1, which required limited idling of construction equipment and reduction of grading activities during period of poor air quality, reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. • Impact 12 D identified a significant impact from regional pollutant emissions in the form of increased vehicle trips to and from the project. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 12.D.1, implement control measures that are specified in attainment plans, and 12.D.2, provide physical facilities in the project design reduced regional emissions but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact was therefore found to be significant and unavoidable. • Impact 12E noted a potentially significant impact with regard to emission of local carbon monoxide. Based on the analysis in the EIR, emission of carbon monoxide was found to be below threshold levels and was a less-than-significant impact. • Impact 12F, on-site fuel combustion, was identified as a potentially significant impact and adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.F.1 reduced this impact to a less- than-significant impact. This mitigation restricted installation of on-site fireplaces or stoves to either gas burning units or units that have been EPA-approved. Conventional open hearth fireplaces were not allowed. • Impact 12G included a significant impact from miscellaneous dust sources leaving the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.G.1, that required adherence to the Bay Area Air Quality Management fugitive dust rules, reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project is required to adhere to these existing mitigation measures and current air quality regulations enforced by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? No New Impact. The BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan is based on population and growth assumptions projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). For the proposed project, the applicant is requesting a modification in the type of residential units. As noted in the Project Description section of this Initial Study, under the proposed project the overall number of dwellings on the overall Schaefer Ranch site would be 420 units which would be less than the project originally approved by the City of Dublin and analyzed in the 1996 EIR(474 units). Vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would be slightly less than s analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see analysis in the Traffic and Transportation section of City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 this Initial Study). The proposed project would therefore be generally consistent with the Clean Air Plan and this would not represent a substantial change to the project analyzed in the previous EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR identified regional pollutant emissions as Significant and Unavoidable impacts. The project proposes residential development within the Schaefer Ranch area in a manner consistent with the previous approvals on the site and within the parameters of the 1996 EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Table 2 within the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study demonstrates that the total daily vehicle trips would be approximately the same as the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Also, the total number of additional dwellings proposed as part of the project (14 units) is significantly fewer than the number of dwellings identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as having potentially significant air emissions (320 units), as shown on Table 6 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document. Therefore, regional pollutant emissions from the proposed project would same or less and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as identified in 1996 EIR. In terms of construction-level air quality impacts, as conditions of grading plan approval by the City of Dublin, the applicant is required to have their grading contractor undertake dust and wind-borne erosion control methods listed in Mitigation Measure 12G.1 of the 1996 EIR, including covering of stockpiled material, watering of graded sites and similar methods to meet BAAQMD standards. In terms of operational-level air quality impacts, the number of daily vehicle trips are anticipated to be slightly less under the proposed project than the original 1996 project as demonstrated in Table 2 contained in the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality emissions would be same or less than documented in the 1996 project EIR. As discussed above, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of 14 single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning and as was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of 14 single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 and as was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The added dwellings would not substantially increase the overall Schaefer Ranch contribution to cumulative air pollution. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding cumulative air pollution. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a number of biologically important biological communities, including annul grasslands, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland, freshwater emergency wetland and stock ponds. The Schaefer Ranch has been mass graded to allow for urban development pursuant to existing land use approvals, although portions of the Ranch have been preserved and/or reconstructed as riparian habitat, oak tree preserve areas and other open space areas to protect biological resources. None of the preserved areas are located within this project area. Subareas 1 and 2 have been included in a completed mass grading operation, approved pursuant to a grading permit by the City of Dublin and therefore contain no trees, creeks or other significant natural features. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified that the project site contained a number of significant biological resources, including a stand of coast live oak trees, and cost live oak/bay riparian vegetation mixed with annual grasslands. The 1996 EIR contains a number of impacts and mitigation measures regarding biological resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 6C identified loss of approximately 245 acres of grasslands as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.C.1 required reseeding of disturbed grasslands with native grasses. • Impact 6D noted a loss of oak woodlands and other heritage trees as part of the development proposal, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.D.1 required completion of a tree survey before grading and retention of heritage class trees (18-inch diameter at 20 inches above grade) to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 6.D.2 required implementation of protection measures for trees that are to be preserved. Mitigation Measure 6.D.3 required planting of replacement trees on the site at a ratio of 3 replacement trees for each 1 tree lost. City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 this Initial Study). The proposed project would therefore be generally consistent with the Clean Air Plan and this would not represent a substantial change to the project analyzed in the previous EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR identified regional pollutant emissions as Significant and Unavoidable impacts. The project proposes residential development within the Schaefer Ranch area in a manner consistent with the previous approvals on the site and within the parameters of the 1996 EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Table 2 within the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study demonstrates that the total daily vehicle trips would be approximately the same as the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Also, the total number of additional dwellings proposed as part of the project (14 units) is significantly fewer than the number of dwellings identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District as having potentially significant air emissions (320 units), as shown on Table 6 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines document. Therefore, regional pollutant emissions from the proposed project would same or less and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as identified in 1996 EIR. In terms of construction-level air quality impacts, as conditions of grading plan approval by the City of Dublin, the applicant is required to have their grading contractor undertake dust and wind-borne erosion control methods listed in Mitigation Measure 12G.1 of the 1996 EIR, including covering of stockpiled material, watering of graded sites and similar methods to meet BAAQMD standards. In terms of operational-level air quality impacts, the number of daily vehicle trips are anticipated to be slightly less under the proposed project than the original 1996 project as demonstrated in Table 2 contained in the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality emissions would be same or less than documented in the 1996 project EIR. As discussed above, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? No New Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of 14 single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning and as was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? No New Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase of 14 single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 and as was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The added dwellings would not substantially increase the overall Schaefer Ranch contribution to cumulative air pollution. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding cumulative air pollution. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a number of biologically important biological communities, including annul grasslands, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland, freshwater emergency wetland and stock ponds. The Schaefer Ranch has been mass graded to allow for urban development pursuant to existing land use approvals, although portions of the Ranch have been preserved and/or reconstructed as riparian habitat, oak tree preserve areas and other open space areas to protect biological resources. None of the preserved areas are located within this project area. Subareas 1 and 2 have been included in a completed mass grading operation, approved pursuant to a grading permit by the City of Dublin and therefore contain no trees, creeks or other significant natural features. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified that the project site contained a number of significant biological resources, including a stand of coast live oak trees, and cost live oak/bay riparian vegetation mixed with annual grasslands. The 1996 EIR contains a number of impacts and mitigation measures regarding biological resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 6C identified loss of approximately 245 acres of grasslands as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.C.1 required reseeding of disturbed grasslands with native grasses. • Impact 6D noted a loss of oak woodlands and other heritage trees as part of the development proposal, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.D.1 required completion of a tree survey before grading and retention of heritage class trees (18-inch diameter at 20 inches above grade) to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 6.D.2 required implementation of protection measures for trees that are to be preserved. Mitigation Measure 6.D.3 required planting of replacement trees on the site at a ratio of 3 replacement trees for each 1 tree lost. City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 6E identifies secondary impacts to native plants and wildlife, including "escape" of non-native plants into the environment and impacts to native wildlife of domestic pets. Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 required project landscape plans to emphasize use of native plant materials. Mitigation Measure 6.E.2 required enforcement of Dublin's leash law. Even with adherence to these measures, Impact 6E would remain significant and unavoidable. • Impact 6F found that runoff of herbicide sprays could enter natural plant communities and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 6.F.1 required restrictions of application of herbicides will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these existing biological resource mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of special status plant and wildlife species that could occur on the Schaefer Ranch property. Since certification of the 1996 and approval of the original land use entitlements, the entire project site has been graded to accommodate future buildings and roads. As required by Mitigation Measures 6.D.1, 6.D.2, and 6.D.3 contained in the 1996 EIR, surveys for sensitive tree species were completed, tree protection measures provided for trees to be preserved and replacement trees planted for as part of approved project landscaping. As a result of mass grading of a majority of the Schaefer Ranch property, no plant or wildlife species or habitats exist on the site. As required by Mitigation Measure 1996 EIR C.6.1, a preconstruction survey was completed for burrowing owl by the firm of LSA prior to commencement of grading activities (source: project applicant 8/31/12) Therefore, approval and construction of the project would not have new or more severe significant impacts on candidate, sensitive or special-status plants or wildlife or their respective habitats beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat,other sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. No creeks, streams, wetlands or waters of the United States or waters of the state were identified on any portion of the two Subareas in the 1996 EIR. There would be no impacts with respect to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with regard to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands than were analyzed in the previous EIR. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. No creeks or streams exist currently on the site so there would be no interference with native fish migration. Proposed residences would be constructed in areas planned and approved for residences and that have been City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 previously graded to remove suitable habitat for wildlife migration. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with regard to interference of fish or wildlife movement than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact. There would be no conflicts and no impacts with any local policies regarding biological resources should this project be approved and constructed. Any trees formerly growing on the site were removed prior to or as part of the mass grading of Schaefer Ranch. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with regard to potential conflicts with local ordinances protecting biological resources than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and 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 more severe significant impacts associated with this topic. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting A cultural resources survey of the Schaefer Ranch was undertaken as part of the 1996 EIR. Prehistoric findings were limited to one isolated chert flake and a possible bedrock mortar which were not located on the project site. These finds were not conclusively determined to be of prehistoric origins. The two Subareas are vacant and contain no structures. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures regarding cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 14A identifies a potential impact with regard to prehistoric resources that may not have been identified in previous cultural resource surveys of the Schaefer Ranch. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1 that required work to stop within a 100- foot radius of the discovery of any cultural resources and for the City to prepare a work plan consistent with CEQA Guidelines to ensure that such resource is City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 6E identifies secondary impacts to native plants and wildlife, including "escape" of non-native plants into the environment and impacts to native wildlife of domestic pets. Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 required project landscape plans to emphasize use of native plant materials. Mitigation Measure 6.E.2 required enforcement of Dublin's leash law. Even with adherence to these measures, Impact 6E would remain significant and unavoidable. • Impact 6F found that runoff of herbicide sprays could enter natural plant communities and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 6.F.1 required restrictions of application of herbicides will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project will be required to adhere to these existing biological resource mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? No New Impact. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of special status plant and wildlife species that could occur on the Schaefer Ranch property. Since certification of the 1996 and approval of the original land use entitlements, the entire project site has been graded to accommodate future buildings and roads. As required by Mitigation Measures 6.D.1, 6.D.2, and 6.D.3 contained in the 1996 EIR, surveys for sensitive tree species were completed, tree protection measures provided for trees to be preserved and replacement trees planted for as part of approved project landscaping. As a result of mass grading of a majority of the Schaefer Ranch property, no plant or wildlife species or habitats exist on the site. As required by Mitigation Measure 1996 EIR C.6.1, a preconstruction survey was completed for burrowing owl by the firm of LSA prior to commencement of grading activities (source: project applicant 8/31/12) Therefore, approval and construction of the project would not have new or more severe significant impacts on candidate, sensitive or special-status plants or wildlife or their respective habitats beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands? No New Impact. No creeks, streams, wetlands or waters of the United States or waters of the state were identified on any portion of the two Subareas in the 1996 EIR. There would be no impacts with respect to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with regard to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands than were analyzed in the previous EIR. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish or wildlife species? No New Impact. No creeks or streams exist currently on the site so there would be no interference with native fish migration. Proposed residences would be constructed in areas planned and approved for residences and that have been City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 previously graded to remove suitable habitat for wildlife migration. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with regard to interference of fish or wildlife movement than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? No New Impact. There would be no conflicts and no impacts with any local policies regarding biological resources should this project be approved and constructed. Any trees formerly growing on the site were removed prior to or as part of the mass grading of Schaefer Ranch. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with regard to potential conflicts with local ordinances protecting biological resources than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? The project site lies within the Eastern Alameda County Conservation Strategy (EACCS) planning area. The City of Dublin utilizes the Conservation Strategy as guidance for environmental permitting for public projects, and private development projects are encouraged to use the EACCS as a resource as well. The Conservation Strategy embodies a regional approach to permitting and 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 more severe significant impacts associated with this topic. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting A cultural resources survey of the Schaefer Ranch was undertaken as part of the 1996 EIR. Prehistoric findings were limited to one isolated chert flake and a possible bedrock mortar which were not located on the project site. These finds were not conclusively determined to be of prehistoric origins. The two Subareas are vacant and contain no structures. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures regarding cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 14A identifies a potential impact with regard to prehistoric resources that may not have been identified in previous cultural resource surveys of the Schaefer Ranch. This impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1 that required work to stop within a 100- foot radius of the discovery of any cultural resources and for the City to prepare a work plan consistent with CEQA Guidelines to ensure that such resource is City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 properly evaluated and treated. If necessary, monitoring of this site by a qualified archeologist may be required. This mitigation measure will continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resource or human remains? No New Impact. No structures exist on the two Subareas so there would be no impact with regard to historic resources. This would not represent a new or more severe significant impact than previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological,paleontological resources or human remains? No New Impact. Subareas 1 and 2 have been mass graded and no significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological or Native American remains were discovered. Minimal additional grading would be required for building foundations and trenching for on-site utilities. Based on a discussion with the project representative (pers. comm. D. Chen, 9/31/12) the depth of such additional grading would be minor, approximately 10 feet into an existing 100-foot deep fill area, and would not exceed the depths of completed grading activities. Therefore, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted the presence of several soil and geotechnical conditions on the Schaefer Ranch Site. Colluvial soils, which are composed of clay and silty clay are found in ravines and swales leading to main stream channels. Alluvial deposits are generally located in a drainage course in the northern portion of the Ranch. A large portion of the Ranch was underlain by historic landsides. As noted in the Project Description portion of this Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch has been substantially graded. Overall grading also remediated identified landslide areas pursuant to oversight by registered geologists. The Schaefer Ranch does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone), as documented in the 1996 EIR. Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of impacts and mitigation measures related to soils and geology. The following are applicable impacts and mitigation measures that will continue to apply to the current project: City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 9A identified a significant impact related to mass grading of the Ranch, which would have the effect of removing natural vegetation and wildlife habitat as well as possibly causing landslides and slope failures. Mitigation Measure 9.A.1 required City approval of a grading plan consistent with City standards and that also reduced visual impacts and satisfy geotechnical requirements. Mitigation Measure 9.A.2 required that grading activities be balanced to eliminate the need for off-haul of material. • Impact 9B identified a significant impact with regard to slope stability, since much of the pre-project soil conditions exhibited the presence of historic landslides. Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 reduced landslide and slope stability impacts to a less-than significant level. These measures required remediation of historic landslides, control of surface and subsurface drainage, removal of soils that are susceptible to "soil creep," establishment of setbacks from landslide hazard areas, use of appropriate engineering designs to ensure slope stability and formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to ensure long-term maintenance of slope areas. • Impact 9C found a significant impact with regard to erosion impacts of grading activities off of the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.C.1 through 3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring adherence to a site-specific erosion control plan, implementing erosion control measures during construction and incorporating permanent erosion control measures into the development, including creek bank revetments and slope seeding. • Impact 9D identified an impact with regard to fill settlement. The 41.5-acre site has already been filled consistent with Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 9.D.5. None of the three project subareas are affected by this Mitigation Measure. • Impact 9E identified an impact related to expansive and corrosive soils. Expansive soils could damage building foundations and other improvements due to shrinking and swelling of clay soils. Corrosive soils could impact underground utilities, foundations and concrete in contact with soil. Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 through 3 are included in the EIR to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. These measures required geotechnical investigations for shrink-swell potential, special foundation designs to deal with expansive soil and control of moisture content to minimize soil shrinking and swelling. • Impact 9F identified an impact related to seismic hazards, including strong ground shaking and possible surface rupture. Secondary seismic effects could include landsliding, liquefaction and soil lurching. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 3 reduced seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level. These measures included completing detailed analyses of seismic hazards for individual development projects to evaluate the effects of groundshaking and rupture as well as secondary effects and a determination of specific construction techniques to minimize these effects. The mitigations also required incorporation of earthquake resistant design for all structures and mapping of inactive faults in City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 properly evaluated and treated. If necessary, monitoring of this site by a qualified archeologist may be required. This mitigation measure will continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resource or human remains? No New Impact. No structures exist on the two Subareas so there would be no impact with regard to historic resources. This would not represent a new or more severe significant impact than previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological, paleontological resources or human remains? No New Impact. Subareas 1 and 2 have been mass graded and no significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological or Native American remains were discovered. Minimal additional grading would be required for building foundations and trenching for on-site utilities. Based on a discussion with the project representative (pers. comm. D. Chen, 9/31/12) the depth of such additional grading would be minor, approximately 10 feet into an existing 100-foot deep fill area, and would not exceed the depths of completed grading activities. Therefore, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted the presence of several soil and geotechnical conditions on the Schaefer Ranch Site. Coluuvial soils, which are composed of clay and silty clay are found in ravines and swales leading to main stream channels. Alluvial deposits are generally located in a drainage course in the northern portion of the Ranch. A large portion of the Ranch was underlain by historic landsides. As noted in the Project Description portion of this Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch has been substantially graded. Overall grading also remediated identified landslide areas pursuant to oversight by registered geologists. The Schaefer Ranch does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone), as documented in the 1996 EIR. Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of impacts and mitigation measures related to soils and geology. The following are applicable impacts and mitigation measures that will continue to apply to the current project: City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 9A identified a significant impact related to mass grading of the Ranch, which would have the effect of removing natural vegetation and wildlife habitat as well as possibly causing landslides and slope failures. Mitigation Measure 9.A.1 required City approval of a grading plan consistent with City standards and that also reduced visual impacts and satisfy geotechnical requirements. Mitigation Measure 9.A.2 required that grading activities be balanced to eliminate the need for off-haul of material. • Impact 9B identified a significant impact with regard to slope stability, since much of the pre-project soil conditions exhibited the presence of historic landslides. Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 reduced landslide and slope stability impacts to a less-than significant level. These measures required remediation of historic landslides, control of surface and subsurface drainage, removal of soils that are susceptible to "soil creep," establishment of setbacks from landslide hazard areas, use of appropriate engineering designs to ensure slope stability and formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to ensure long-term maintenance of slope areas. • Impact 9C found a significant impact with regard to erosion impacts of grading activities off of the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.C.1 through 3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring adherence to a site-specific erosion control plan, implementing erosion control measures during construction and incorporating permanent erosion control measures into the development, including creek bank revetments and slope seeding. • Impact 9D identified an impact with regard to fill settlement. The 41.5-acre site has already been filled consistent with Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 9.D.5. None of the three project subareas are affected by this Mitigation Measure. • Impact 9E identified an impact related to expansive and corrosive soils. Expansive soils could damage building foundations and other improvements due to shrinking and swelling of clay soils. Corrosive soils could impact underground utilities, foundations and concrete in contact with soil. Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 through 3 are included in the EIR to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. These measures required geotechnical investigations for shrink-swell potential, special foundation designs to deal with expansive soil and control of moisture content to minimize soil shrinking and swelling. • Impact 9F identified an impact related to seismic hazards, including strong ground shaking and possible surface rupture. Secondary seismic effects could include landsliding, liquefaction and soil lurching. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 3 reduced seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level. These measures included completing detailed analyses of seismic hazards for individual development projects to evaluate the effects of groundshaking and rupture as well as secondary effects and a determination of specific construction techniques to minimize these effects. The mitigations also required incorporation of earthquake resistant design for all structures and mapping of inactive faults in City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 the project area and incorporation of remedial measures for inactive faults on project structures. The current project will be required to comply with the above geologic 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 potential for impacts related to ground-based seismic hazards, specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or other ground failure was addressed in the 1996 EIR (Impact 9F) and adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 3 reduced these impacts to a less-than- significant level. To comply with these mitigation measures, a soils and geology reports were completed by Alan Kropp & Associates (1997) and ENGEO (2004). The reports include specific construction measures to minimize groundshaking, ground failure and landslides that have been followed for previous grading and will be followed for future construction on the subareas. These reports are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. These measures continue to apply to this portion of the Schaefer Ranch development project. There would therefore be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to seismic impacts than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Refer to Hydrology section 8a for a discussion of this topic. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR noted Impact 9E, expansive and corrosive soils, within the Schaefer Ranch property. The 1996 EIR determined that with adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 through 3, impacts related to unstable and expansive soils, including lateral spreading, liquefaction and similar hazards, were less-than-significant. Similarly, adherence to 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 reduced impacts related to landslide and slope stability to a less-than-significant level, as did Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 5 related to fill settlement. The current project would be residential and within the development areas included in the 1996 EIR. With adherence to these and other soil and geology mitigations contained in the 1996 EIR, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 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 impacts with regard to septic systems, as identified in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the EIR in 1996, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. Because the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and 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 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIR;however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Schaefer Ranch EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of the EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change 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 Schaefer Ranch EIR in 1996. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project 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 Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted that several areas of the Schaefer Ranch property were found to contain hazardous and potentially hazardous materials, including areas contaminated with petrochemicals associated with vehicle storage and maintenance, insecticide residue from agricultural operations, refuse disposal sites and several power poles and transformers that could contain PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a potentially hazard substance). City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 the project area and incorporation of remedial measures for inactive faults on project structures. The current project will be required to comply with the above geologic 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 potential for impacts related to ground-based seismic hazards, specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or other ground failure was addressed in the 1996 EIR (Impact 9F) and adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.F.1 through 3 reduced these impacts to a less-than- significant level. To comply with these mitigation measures, a soils and geology reports were completed by Alan Kropp & Associates (1997) and ENGEO (2004). The reports include specific construction measures to minimize groundshaking, ground failure and landslides that have been followed for previous grading and will be followed for future construction on the subareas. These reports are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and are available for review at Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. These measures continue to apply to this portion of the Schaefer Ranch development project. There would therefore be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to seismic impacts than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? No New Impact. Refer to Hydrology section 8a for a discussion of this topic. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR noted Impact 9E, expansive and corrosive soils, within the Schaefer Ranch property. The 1996 EIR determined that with adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 through 3, impacts related to unstable and expansive soils, including lateral spreading, liquefaction and similar hazards, were less-than-significant. Similarly, adherence to 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 reduced impacts related to landslide and slope stability to a less-than-significant level, as did Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 5 related to fill settlement. The current project would be residential and within the development areas included in the 1996 EIR. With adherence to these and other soil and geology mitigations contained in the 1996 EIR, there would be no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 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 impacts with regard to septic systems, as identified in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Environmental Setting Since certification of the EIR in 1996, the issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. Because the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and 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 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIRs were certified as complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts were not analyzed in the prior EIR;however, these impacts are not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the Schaefer Ranch EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was widely known prior to the certification of the EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. In the early and mid 2000s, GHGs and climate change 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 Schaefer Ranch EIR in 1996. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No supplemental environmental analysis of the project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. Project 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 Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted that several areas of the Schaefer Ranch property were found to contain hazardous and potentially hazardous materials, including areas contaminated with petrochemicals associated with vehicle storage and maintenance, insecticide residue from agricultural operations, refuse disposal sites and several power poles and transformers that could contain PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls, a potentially hazard substance). City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified one impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Impact 15A found that the potential presence of hazardous materials on the Ranch property in close proximity to planned residential and similar uses would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through 4 were included in the EIR that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures call for removal of hazardous materials, including electrical transformers with potentially hazardous materials, abandonment and destruction of on-site wells and additional hazardous materials analysis if found on the Schaefer Ranch during construction. These measures have been completed. Project 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 project. Although a normal and customary amount of paint, solvents,lawn care chemicals and similar substances would be used and stored within individual residences on the project site, these would not be used, stored or transported in any significant quantities. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. 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. Schaefer Ranch has been graded and filled with approximately 100 feet of fill material in specific areas. Prior to the grading operation, the applicant was required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 of the 1996 EIR to remove hazardous materials from the site, remove above-ground electrical power transformer, close existing wells and septic system facilities and assess other hazardous materials on the site. A site investigation was completed by ENGEO, Inc. to fulfill this mitigation measure on June 19, 2008. This letter is hereby incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. No new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. No public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the project site, based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities Plan," published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts Consulting, Inc.). Adherence to mitigation measures to remove any hazardous materials on the site, as required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR ensures that there will be no impact with regard to this topic. There are therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. The project site is not listed by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of November 13, 2014. There is therefore no new or more severe significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the previous EIR. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site is not located near any public airport or private airstrip (source: Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, August 2012). No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed. g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no public or private roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe significant impact would therefore result with respect to this topic than were previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project area is located in a substantially urbanizing area, although wildlands do exist north and west of the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 7.3.5 contained in the 1996 EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures required installation of a irrigated border of fire-resistant vegetation with a minimum width of 30 feet, provision of disced fire breaks, use of fire resistant construction materials, provision of adequate emergency access and, as a condition of tentative subdivision map approval, require a fuel management plan to reduce the fire fuel load. With adherence to these measures, which will be required as conditions of the requested land use entitlements, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to wildland fire have been identified than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Schaefer Ranch area drains into two major regional watersheds: Palomares Creek and Dublin Creek. These two are divided by Skyline Ridge. The western portion of Schaefer Ranch, including the project Subareas, are located within the jurisdictions of Zone 2 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 2). Zone 2 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. The eastern portion of Schaefer Ranch (east of Schaefer Ranch Road) is located within Zone 7. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified one impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Impact 15A found that the potential presence of hazardous materials on the Ranch property in close proximity to planned residential and similar uses would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through 4 were included in the EIR that reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures call for removal of hazardous materials, including electrical transformers with potentially hazardous materials, abandonment and destruction of on-site wells and additional hazardous materials analysis if found on the Schaefer Ranch during construction. These measures have been completed. Project 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 project. Although a normal and customary amount of paint, solvents,lawn care chemicals and similar substances would be used and stored within individual residences on the project site, these would not be used, stored or transported in any significant quantities. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. 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. Schaefer Ranch has been graded and filled with approximately 100 feet of fill material in specific areas. Prior to the grading operation, the applicant was required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 of the 1996 EIR to remove hazardous materials from the site, remove above-ground electrical power transformer, close existing wells and septic system facilities and assess other hazardous materials on the site. A site investigation was completed by ENGEO, Inc. to fulfill this mitigation measure on June 19, 2008. This letter is hereby incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. No new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No New Impact. No public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the project site, based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities Plan," published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts Consulting, Inc.). Adherence to mitigation measures to remove any hazardous materials on the site, as required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR ensures that there will be no impact with regard to this topic. There are therefore no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? No New Impact. The project site is not listed by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of November 13, 2014. There is therefore no new or more severe significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the previous EIR. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? No New Impact. The project site is not located near any public airport or private airstrip (source: Alameda County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, August 2012). No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed. g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? No New Impact. The proposed project would include construction of a residential project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no public or private roadways would be blocked. No new or more severe significant impact would therefore result with respect to this topic than were previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No New Impact. The project area is located in a substantially urbanizing area, although wildlands do exist north and west of the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 7.3.5 contained in the 1996 EIR reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures required installation of a irrigated border of fire-resistant vegetation with a minimum width of 30 feet, provision of disced fire breaks, use of fire resistant construction materials, provision of adequate emergency access and, as a condition of tentative subdivision map approval, require a fuel management plan to reduce the fire fuel load. With adherence to these measures, which will be required as conditions of the requested land use entitlements, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to wildland fire have been identified than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Schaefer Ranch area drains into two major regional watersheds: Palomares Creek and Dublin Creek. These two are divided by Skyline Ridge. The western portion of Schaefer Ranch, including the project Subareas, are located within the jurisdictions of Zone 2 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 2). Zone 2 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. The eastern portion of Schaefer Ranch (east of Schaefer Ranch Road) is located within Zone 7. City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Existing drainage facilities As a condition of project approval from the Dublin Public Works Department, the project will be conditioned to meet the requirements of the 2009 Municipal Regional Permit that requires compliance with C.3 surface water quality standards (pers. comm., Jayson Imai, City of Dublin Senior Civil Engineer, 11/20/14). Pursuant to the approved Master Drainage Plan, a number of drainage facilities have been constructed on Schaefer Ranch, including but not limited to underground drainage lines, swales and detention and water quality ponds. Groundwater recharge The project Subareas are not located near any major creek and has been filled with approximately 100 feet of earth material that precludes groundwater recharge. The Schaefer Ranch property is not designated for groundwater recharge purposes in the Dublin General Plan. Flooding The most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map for the western portion of Dublin Community Panel #060705 0001B) does not include the Schaefer Ranch property. However, based on discussions with the City of Dublin Public Works Department (Jayson Imai, City of Dublin, 11/20/14), the topographic elevation of the two subareas are out of the 100-year flood plain. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to flooding, drainage and water quality. • Impact 8.1A noted potentially significant impacts with regard to grading and related impacts on drainage. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1 through 8.1.7, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. This measure called for preparation of a master drainage plan for the whole of the Schaefer Ranch property, provision of flood control improvements on and off the site, coordination with other applicable agencies and ensuring design is consistent with applicable drainage design standards. • Impact 8.2A noted that increased sedimentation would occur with development of the Schaefer Ranch and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.4 reduced sediment impacts to a less- than-significant level. These measures require preparation and submittal of a water quality report to the City of Dublin, DSRSD, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Zone 7 that includes specific construction techniques to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result to surface bodies of water. The mitigation measures also requires the abandonment and sealing of existing on-site wells and septic tanks and provisions for ensuring water quality for any open reservoirs located on the Ranch. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the project. The project is also subject to the requirements under current Clean Water Act and associated implementing regulations enforced by the City of Dublin. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would add impervious surfaces to the two subareas that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. This impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR as Impact 8.2A and, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.2.1, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project applicant will be required to comply with C.3 surface water quality standards and other water quality regulations normally and customarily enforced by the City of Dublin and other jurisdictions (including but not limited to Zone 7). The project applicant will also be required to continue adherence to this Mitigation Measure for final grading operations on the project subareas. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to water quality standards have been identified in this Initial Study than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not on local groundwater supplies. No local wells would be used to supply water to the proposed project. The Schaefer Ranch is not designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. Although new impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, driveways and similar surfaces, this impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see Impact 8.1A, Grading and Impacts on Drainage). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1, which requires preparation of a Master Drainage Plan and Mitigation Measure 8.1.6 that requires installation of erosion improvements for unlined drainage channels, among others, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. Much of the project site has been mass graded with approvals of a grading plan and in conformity with the City approved Master Drainage Plan. It is anticipated that additional fine grading would be required to create individual building pads and related improvements. Subsequent grading activities on the site will be required to conform to the approved Master Drainage Plan, C.3 water quality standards and all other mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR to ensure that no new or more severe significant alterations to drainage patterns, stream courses or that significant amounts of siltation or erosion would occur. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. Much of the project site has already been graded based on a mass grading plan and Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other agencies as required by City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Existing drainage facilities As a condition of project approval from the Dublin Public Works Department, the project will be conditioned to meet the requirements of the 2009 Municipal Regional Permit that requires compliance with C.3 surface water quality standards (pers. comm., Jayson Imai, City of Dublin Senior Civil Engineer, 11/20/14). Pursuant to the approved Master Drainage Plan, a number of drainage facilities have been constructed on Schaefer Ranch, including but not limited to underground drainage lines, swales and detention and water quality ponds. Groundwater recharge The project Subareas are not located near any major creek and has been filled with approximately 100 feet of earth material that precludes groundwater recharge. The Schaefer Ranch property is not designated for groundwater recharge purposes in the Dublin General Plan. Flooding The most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map for the western portion of Dublin Community Panel #060705 0001B) does not include the Schaefer Ranch property. However, based on discussions with the City of Dublin Public Works Department (Jayson Imai, City of Dublin, 11/20/14), the topographic elevation of the two subareas are out of the 100-year flood plain. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to flooding, drainage and water quality. • Impact 8.1A noted potentially significant impacts with regard to grading and related impacts on drainage. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1 through 8.1.7, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. This measure called for preparation of a master drainage plan for the whole of the Schaefer Ranch property, provision of flood control improvements on and off the site, coordination with other applicable agencies and ensuring design is consistent with applicable drainage design standards. • Impact 8.2A noted that increased sedimentation would occur with development of the Schaefer Ranch and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.4 reduced sediment impacts to a less- than-significant level. These measures require preparation and submittal of a water quality report to the City of Dublin, DSRSD, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Zone 7 that includes specific construction techniques to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result to surface bodies of water. The mitigation measures also requires the abandonment and sealing of existing on-site wells and septic tanks and provisions for ensuring water quality for any open reservoirs located on the Ranch. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the project. The project is also subject to the requirements under current Clean Water Act and associated implementing regulations enforced by the City of Dublin. City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No New Impact. Approval and construction of the proposed project would add impervious surfaces to the two subareas that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. This impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR as Impact 8.2A and, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.2.1, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. The project applicant will be required to comply with C.3 surface water quality standards and other water quality regulations normally and customarily enforced by the City of Dublin and other jurisdictions (including but not limited to Zone 7). The project applicant will also be required to continue adherence to this Mitigation Measure for final grading operations on the project subareas. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to water quality standards have been identified in this Initial Study than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? No New Impact. No impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since the proposed water source for this project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not on local groundwater supplies. No local wells would be used to supply water to the proposed project. The Schaefer Ranch is not designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan. There would be no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to this topic than have been previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? No New Impact. Although new impervious surfaces would be added to the project site to accommodate new dwellings, driveways and similar surfaces, this impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see Impact 8.1A, Grading and Impacts on Drainage). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1, which requires preparation of a Master Drainage Plan and Mitigation Measure 8.1.6 that requires installation of erosion improvements for unlined drainage channels, among others, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. Much of the project site has been mass graded with approvals of a grading plan and in conformity with the City approved Master Drainage Plan. It is anticipated that additional fine grading would be required to create individual building pads and related improvements. Subsequent grading activities on the site will be required to conform to the approved Master Drainage Plan, C.3 water quality standards and all other mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR to ensure that no new or more severe significant alterations to drainage patterns, stream courses or that significant amounts of siltation or erosion would occur. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? No New Impact. Much of the project site has already been graded based on a mass grading plan and Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other agencies as required by City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Mitigation Measure 8.1.1. Additional fine grading that would occur will be required to conform to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1 to ensure that no additional impacts would occur to drainage patterns or stormwater runoff. The developer is also required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requiring the project developer to install flood control facilities and Mitigation Measure 8.1.5, that requires the developer to undertake additional off-site flooding improvements, as needed. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding drainage patterns and runoff than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. The issue of exceeding capacities of drainage systems or increasing the amount of polluted runoff was addressed in the 1996 EIR by Impact 8.1A. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 required the project developer to plan and install necessary flood control and drainage facilities to minimize downstream flooding, including installation of on- site detention facilities. Appropriate storm drain and flood control facilities have been incorporated into the Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other regulatory agencies. The Master Drainage Plan includes local improvements to the local drainage system to minimize flooding and substantial amounts of polluted runoff. The project is also required by the City of Dublin to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff of polluted drainage (pers. comm.,Jayson Imai Public Works Department, 11/20/14). The applicant has proposed to use an existing area-wide water quality pond west of the project site to ensure compliance with all applicable City and regional water quality standards. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to drainage systems or polluted runoff than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This issue and has been addressed above in item "a." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. Project Subareas lie outside of the 100-year flood plain and no impacts would occur with regard to placing additional housing units within a 100-year flood plain (pers. comm.,Jayson Imai, 11/20/14). h, i) 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. No impacts with regard to hazards from dam failure were identified in the 1996 EIR. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. Project Subareas are located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water and would not be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 contained in the 1996 EIR addressed impacts related to protection from landslide and mudflows. The ENGEO soils report addressed the potential for landslide on the Schaefer Ranch and recommended steps to reduce City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. These steps were incorporated into the mass grading plan for the overall Schaefer Ranch site as required by the Mitigation Measure. No new or more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the previous EIR are anticipated with regard to landslides and mudflows. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Properties comprising the project site areas currently vacant and contain no structures. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The properties comprising the two Subareas are vacant and are part of the larger Schaefer Ranch residential planned community. A portion of the Schaefer Ranch master plan has been constructed. There are no existing dwellings or residents on the two subareas included in this application. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur with respect to division of an established community should the project be approved. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact.The applicant has requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate land uses on Subarea 1 as described in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. A future General Plan amendment would be required with development applications for development of Subarea 2. If this application is approved by the City, the project would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, since it would be consistent with the land uses and the density range specified in the General Plan. No other land use plan or policy conflicts would exist and there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to this topic than previously analyzed. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study. There are no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or natural community conservation plan for this project than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Mitigation Measure 8.1.1. Additional fine grading that would occur will be required to conform to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1 to ensure that no additional impacts would occur to drainage patterns or stormwater runoff. The developer is also required to adhere to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requiring the project developer to install flood control facilities and Mitigation Measure 8.1.5, that requires the developer to undertake additional off-site flooding improvements, as needed. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding drainage patterns and runoff than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? No New Impact. The issue of exceeding capacities of drainage systems or increasing the amount of polluted runoff was addressed in the 1996 EIR by Impact 8.1A. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 required the project developer to plan and install necessary flood control and drainage facilities to minimize downstream flooding, including installation of on- site detention facilities. Appropriate storm drain and flood control facilities have been incorporated into the Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other regulatory agencies. The Master Drainage Plan includes local improvements to the local drainage system to minimize flooding and substantial amounts of polluted runoff. The project is also required by the City of Dublin to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize runoff of polluted drainage (pers. comm.,Jayson Imai Public Works Department, 11/20/14). The applicant has proposed to use an existing area-wide water quality pond west of the project site to ensure compliance with all applicable City and regional water quality standards. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to drainage systems or polluted runoff than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Substantially degrade water quality? No New Impact. This issue and has been addressed above in item "a." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? No New Impact. Project Subareas lie outside of the 100-year flood plain and no impacts would occur with regard to placing additional housing units within a 100-year flood plain (pers. comm.,Jayson Imai, 11/20/14). h, i) 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. No impacts with regard to hazards from dam failure were identified in the 1996 EIR. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? No New Impact. Project Subareas are located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water and would not be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 contained in the 1996 EIR addressed impacts related to protection from landslide and mudflows. The ENGEO soils report addressed the potential for landslide on the Schaefer Ranch and recommended steps to reduce City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 this potential impact to a less-than-significant level. These steps were incorporated into the mass grading plan for the overall Schaefer Ranch site as required by the Mitigation Measure. No new or more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the previous EIR are anticipated with regard to landslides and mudflows. 10. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting Properties comprising the project site areas currently vacant and contain no structures. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? No New Impact. The properties comprising the two Subareas are vacant and are part of the larger Schaefer Ranch residential planned community. A portion of the Schaefer Ranch master plan has been constructed. There are no existing dwellings or residents on the two subareas included in this application. No new or more severe significant impacts would therefore occur with respect to division of an established community should the project be approved. No new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No New Impact.The applicant has requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate land uses on Subarea 1 as described in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. A future General Plan amendment would be required with development applications for development of Subarea 2. If this application is approved by the City, the project would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, since it would be consistent with the land uses and the density range specified in the General Plan. No other land use plan or policy conflicts would exist and there would be no new or more severe significant impacts to this topic than previously analyzed. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No New Impact. The project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study. There are no new or more severe significant impacts with respect to conflicts with a Habitat Conservation Plan or natural community conservation plan for this project than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 11. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 The 1996 EIR does not identify the presence of significant mineral deposits in the Schaefer Ranch area. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic. 12. Noise Environmental 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. Regulatory 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. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. These standards were contained in the previous Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan, which have since been updated (February 2013), but the noise exposure criteria were in effect at the time this project was submitted and are used for this analysis. Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools, churches, 60-70 70-80 80+ -- nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ parks Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 The major sources of noise near the Schaefer Ranch site is traffic noise from the I-580 freeway, immediately south of the site. The 1996 EIR estimated that the 60 dB Ldn noise contour extended approximately 1000 feet north of the centerline of the freeway Schaefer Ranch EIR The following noise impacts and mitigation measures are contained in the 1996 EIR. • Impact 11A identified construction noise generated by grading of the Schaefer Ranch site as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 required that existing residents near the Schaefer Ranch be moved off-site during construction, or that grading activities be phased to limit duration of grading. • Impact 11B noted that future residents on a portion of the Schaefer Ranch site would be impacted by noise from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, by on-site vehicle noise. To mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, Mitigation Measure 11.B.1 required each project developer to prepare and submit a precise noise control plan identifying how City noise exposure levels will be met, including but not limited to building treatments, construction of noise barriers and other techniques. Mitigation Measure 11.B.2 required a redesign of the project where anticipated noise levels would exceed 70 dB Ldn. This impact does not apply to the current project submittal. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the current project. 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. Figure 11-12 contained in the 1996 EIR indicates that all Subareas lie outside of a future significant noise area, defined as an exterior noise level of 60 decibels or greater (Ldn). Therefore, approval and construction of the proposed project would not expose additional residents or visitors to excessive noise levels. No new or more significant noise impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR and no new or additional analysis is required. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The proposed project would include normal construction methods and techniques typical of single-family dwellings. A majority of site grading has already occurred as part of the overall Schaefer mass grading operation, so remaining construction activities would include fine grading and house construction. Typical construction methods for single-family dwellings do not involve significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result with regard to vibration than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR noted that on-site traffic noise would be a minor component of noise on the site City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 The 1996 EIR does not identify the presence of significant mineral deposits in the Schaefer Ranch area. Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the project area, so no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with respect to this topic. 12. Noise Environmental 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. Regulatory 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 1-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. These standards were contained in the previous Noise Element of the Dublin General Plan, which have since been updated (February 2013), but the noise exposure criteria were in effect at the time this project was submitted and are used for this analysis. Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools,churches, 60-70 70-80 80+ -- nursing homes Neighborhood 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ parks Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 The major sources of noise near the Schaefer Ranch site is traffic noise from the I-580 freeway, immediately south of the site. The 1996 EIR estimated that the 60 dB Ldn noise contour extended approximately 1000 feet north of the centerline of the freeway Schaefer Ranch EIR The following noise impacts and mitigation measures are contained in the 1996 EIR. • Impact 11A identified construction noise generated by grading of the Schaefer Ranch site as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 required that existing residents near the Schaefer Ranch be moved off-site during construction, or that grading activities be phased to limit duration of grading. • Impact 11B noted that future residents on a portion of the Schaefer Ranch site would be impacted by noise from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, by on-site vehicle noise. To mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, Mitigation Measure 11.B.1 required each project developer to prepare and submit a precise noise control plan identifying how City noise exposure levels will be met, including but not limited to building treatments, construction of noise barriers and other techniques. Mitigation Measure 11.B.2 required a redesign of the project where anticipated noise levels would exceed 70 dB Ldn. This impact does not apply to the current project submittal. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the current project. 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. Figure 11-12 contained in the 1996 EIR indicates that all Subareas lie outside of a future significant noise area, defined as an exterior noise level of 60 decibels or greater (Ldn). Therefore, approval and construction of the proposed project would not expose additional residents or visitors to excessive noise levels. No new or more significant noise impacts would result than have been previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR and no new or additional analysis is required. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No New Impact. The proposed project would include normal construction methods and techniques typical of single-family dwellings. A majority of site grading has already occurred as part of the overall Schaefer mass grading operation, so remaining construction activities would include fine grading and house construction. Typical construction methods for single-family dwellings do not involve significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts would result with regard to vibration than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? No New Impact. The 1996 EIR noted that on-site traffic noise would be a minor component of noise on the site City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 (Impact 11B.). Increases in off-site noise as a result of traffic generated on the Schaefer Ranch was identified as a less-than-significant level (see Impact 11E). The proposed project, if approved, would slightly increase the number of vehicle trips(see Section 15 of this Initial Study, Transportation). The increase in associated vehicle noise on the site would not be substantial. Therefore no new or more severe significant impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Future grading and construction activities on the project site are limited to weekdays between 7:30 am and 5 pm by Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip,would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the Schaefer Ranch site is not located near any public or private airports or airstrips and no impact would result with regard to this topic. 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The Subareas included in this project are vacant and contain no dwellings. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified less-than-significant or a beneficial impacts with regard to population growth (Impact 2A),housing stock(Impact 2B), affordable housing (Impact 2C), employment(Impact 2D),jobs/housing balance (Impact 2E), sales tax revenues (Impact 2F), property tax revenues (Impact 2G) and competitive impacts (Impact 2H). No mitigation measures regarding population or housing impacts were included in the 1996 EIR. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would increase the permanent population on this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch project. However, the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the project be approved (420 dwellings) would be fewer than analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No impact with regard to substantial population growth is therefore anticipated and no new or more severe significant impacts regarding population growth have been identified in this initial study than were identified in the 1996 EIR. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. The project site is vacant and no housing units or people would be displaced should the project be approved. City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 to the project site is Station No. 16, located at 7494 Donohue Drive in western Dublin. The original development plan for Schaefer Ranch depicted a site for a future fire station. Subsequently, the Alameda County Fire Department determined that there was no need for a station in this location and the City of Dublin allowed the fire station site to be converted to another land use. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities is the responsibility of the City of Dublin. The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified School District, also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time building permits are issued and are used to help off-set project impacts to service providers. Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following impacts regarding public services: • Impact 7.3C identified a significant impact with regard to Fire Department emergency response times to the Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 6 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require reservation of a fire station site and staffing of a new fire station in western Dublin, imposition of fire protection measures on future subdivision maps in the Schaefer Ranch and planting of fire resistant vegetation surrounding dwellings on the Schaefer Ranch. • Impact 7.3D identified a significant impact related to meeting response times to the Schaefer Ranch site by emergency vehicles. Individual developments in the Schaefer Ranch will be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8 City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 (Impact 11B.). Increases in off-site noise as a result of traffic generated on the Schaefer Ranch was identified as a less-than-significant level (see Impact 11E). The proposed project, if approved, would slightly increase the number of vehicle trips(see Section 15 of this Initial Study, Transportation). The increase in associated vehicle noise on the site would not be substantial. Therefore no new or more severe significant impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? No New Impact. Future grading and construction activities on the project site are limited to weekdays between 7:30 am and 5 pm by Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR. No new or more severe significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip,would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? No New Impact. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the Schaefer Ranch site is not located near any public or private airports or airstrips and no impact would result with regard to this topic. 13. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The Subareas included in this project are vacant and contain no dwellings. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified less-than-significant or a beneficial impacts with regard to population growth (Impact 2A), housing stock(Impact 2B), affordable housing (Impact 2C), employment(Impact 2D),jobs/housing balance (Impact 2E), sales tax revenues (Impact 2F), property tax revenues (Impact 2G) and competitive impacts (Impact 2H). No mitigation measures regarding population or housing impacts were included in the 1996 EIR. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? No New Impact. Approval of the proposed project would increase the permanent population on this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch project. However, the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the project be approved (420 dwellings) would be fewer than analyzed in the 1996 EIR(474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No impact with regard to substantial population growth is therefore anticipated and no new or more severe significant impacts regarding population growth have been identified in this initial study than were identified in the 1996 EIR. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? No New Impact. The project site is vacant and no housing units or people would be displaced should the project be approved. City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 to the project site is Station No. 16, located at 7494 Donohue Drive in western Dublin. The original development plan for Schaefer Ranch depicted a site for a future fire station. Subsequently, the Alameda County Fire Department determined that there was no need for a station in this location and the City of Dublin allowed the fire station site to be converted to another land use. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities is the responsibility of the City of Dublin. The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified School District, also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time building permits are issued and are used to help off-set project impacts to service providers. Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following impacts regarding public services: • Impact 7.3C identified a significant impact with regard to Fire Department emergency response times to the Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 6 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require reservation of a fire station site and staffing of a new fire station in western Dublin, imposition of fire protection measures on future subdivision maps in the Schaefer Ranch and planting of fire resistant vegetation surrounding dwellings on the Schaefer Ranch. • Impact 7.3D identified a significant impact related to meeting response times to the Schaefer Ranch site by emergency vehicles. Individual developments in the Schaefer Ranch will be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8 City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 required dedication of a fire station in West Dublin that would contain emergency medical response equipment. Mitigation Measure 7.3.8 requires an educational program to residents focusing on emergency medical response times. • Impact 7.3E notes a significant impact with regard to wildland-structural fires, that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.2—7.3.5. This measure requires planting of fire-resistant vegetation between buildings and wildland areas, provide for emergency vehicle access and discing of fire breaks. • Impact 7.3F identified a significant impact with regard to lack of fire hydrants in the Schaefer Ranch area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.3, that requires installation of DSRSD-approved fire hydrants within the Schaefer Ranch development. • Impact 7.3G noted an impact with regard to an increase of combustible materials on the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.4 require measures such as the use of appropriate materials as part of future construction, including Class A roof material and non-combustible walls, such as stucco, installation of interior fire sprinklers and similar techniques, to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. • Impact 7.3H noted fire impacts with regard to burning of vegetation on the Schaefer Ranch that would be significant. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.5 requires that landscape plans for the project exclude high combustion plant species in favor of fire retardant plants. The measure also requires approval of a fuel modification plan to reduce fuel load adjacent to future houses and that perimeter landscaping be irrigated. With adherence to this measure, Impact 7.3H is less-than-significant. • Impact 7.3I identified an impact with regard to street and road access into the Schaefer Ranch site for emergency vehicles and to maneuver on the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.6 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring roads within the Schaefer Ranch meet fire department design standards, including appropriate road surfaces, maximum gradients, length of cul-de-sac roads and similar items. • Impact 7.3J noted potential impacts with regard to life safety impacts with approval of the Schaefer Ranch project, including allowing sufficient time for occupants to escape buildings in the event of an emergency. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.1, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 reduces this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 is described above. Mitigation Measures 7.3.7 and .8 require implementation of an education and self-inspection program for future residents to allow sprinklers to remain in place and implementation of a Community Education Program focusing on medical emergencies. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 7.4A identifies a significant impact with regard to an increase in the number of calls for service based on development of the Schaefer Ranch and the need for additional police staffing and equipment. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the Schaefer Ranch developer to prepare a budget strategy to increase police staffing and equipment to serve the project and that adequate security services can be provided to regional trails in the area by East Bay Regional Park District. • Impact 7.4B notes a significant impact with regard to site security in terms of visibility of dwellings and police response times. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.4.3 requires police department review of individual development projects to ensure that safety and security components are included in project designs, including proper visibility, access and similar components and reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. • Impact 7.8A identified a significant impact with regard to other municipal services, such as building and safety, engineering, planning, and general governmental services provided by the City of Dublin. Other governmental services are provided by Alameda County, including libraries, welfare and similar functions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires that the City of Dublin analyze other municipal service costs to ensure that satisfactory services can be provided as part of a Development Agreement. • Impact 7.9A notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the amount of solid waste generated by new land uses on the Schaefer Ranch site. The Schaefer Ranch EIR includes Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures requires the applicant to furnish the City a "will serve" letter from the solid waste collector confirming that solid waste collection and disposal services are available to serve the project and that commercial portions of the Schaefer Ranch area provide on-site areas for recycling. • Impact 7.10A identified an impact with regard to school district boundaries and school facilities. When the 1996 EIR was prepared, neither the Castro Valley Unified School District or the Dublin Unified School District had the capacity to accommodate additional students generated by the Schaefer Ranch development. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.10.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. It requires that, prior to residential occupancy, the City verify that attendance boundaries between the two school districts have been resolved, that the Development Agreement for the project provide for payment of school fees by project developers and that the applicable school district has been consulted with regard to siting of any new schools required to serve the Schaefer Ranch project. This action has been completed. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the currently proposed project. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 required dedication of a fire station in West Dublin that would contain emergency medical response equipment. Mitigation Measure 7.3.8 requires an educational program to residents focusing on emergency medical response times. • Impact 7.3E notes a significant impact with regard to wildland-structural fires, that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.2—7.3.5. This measure requires planting of fire-resistant vegetation between buildings and wildland areas, provide for emergency vehicle access and discing of fire breaks. • Impact 7.3F identified a significant impact with regard to lack of fire hydrants in the Schaefer Ranch area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.3, that requires installation of DSRSD-approved fire hydrants within the Schaefer Ranch development. • Impact 7.3G noted an impact with regard to an increase of combustible materials on the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.4 require measures such as the use of appropriate materials as part of future construction, including Class A roof material and non-combustible walls, such as stucco, installation of interior fire sprinklers and similar techniques, to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. • Impact 7.3H noted fire impacts with regard to burning of vegetation on the Schaefer Ranch that would be significant. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.5 requires that landscape plans for the project exclude high combustion plant species in favor of fire retardant plants. The measure also requires approval of a fuel modification plan to reduce fuel load adjacent to future houses and that perimeter landscaping be irrigated. With adherence to this measure, Impact 7.3H is less-than-significant. • Impact 7.3I identified an impact with regard to street and road access into the Schaefer Ranch site for emergency vehicles and to maneuver on the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.6 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring roads within the Schaefer Ranch meet fire department design standards, including appropriate road surfaces, maximum gradients, Iength of cul-de-sac roads and similar items. • Impact 7.3J noted potential impacts with regard to life safety impacts with approval of the Schaefer Ranch project, including allowing sufficient time for occupants to escape buildings in the event of an emergency. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.1, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 reduces this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 is described above. Mitigation Measures 7.3.7 and .8 require implementation of an education and self-inspection program for future residents to allow sprinklers to remain in place and implementation of a Community Education Program focusing on medical emergencies. City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 7.4A identifies a significant impact with regard to an increase in the number of calls for service based on development of the Schaefer Ranch and the need for additional police staffing and equipment. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.4.1 and 7.4.2 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the Schaefer Ranch developer to prepare a budget strategy to increase police staffing and equipment to serve the project and that adequate security services can be provided to regional trails in the area by East Bay Regional Park District. • Impact 7.4B notes a significant impact with regard to site security in terms of visibility of dwellings and police response times. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.4.3 requires police department review of individual development projects to ensure that safety and security components are included in project designs, including proper visibility, access and similar components and reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. • Impact 7.8A identified a significant impact with regard to other municipal services, such as building and safety, engineering, planning, and general governmental services provided by the City of Dublin. Other governmental services are provided by Alameda County, including libraries, welfare and similar functions. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires that the City of Dublin analyze other municipal service costs to ensure that satisfactory services can be provided as part of a Development Agreement. • Impact 7.9A notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the amount of solid waste generated by new land uses on the Schaefer Ranch site. The Schaefer Ranch EIR includes Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures requires the applicant to furnish the City a "will serve" letter from the solid waste collector confirming that solid waste collection and disposal services are available to serve the project and that commercial portions of the Schaefer Ranch area provide on-site areas for recycling. • Impact 7.10A identified an impact with regard to school district boundaries and school facilities. When the 1996 EIR was prepared, neither the Castro Valley Unified School District or the Dublin Unified School District had the capacity to accommodate additional students generated by the Schaefer Ranch development. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.10.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. It requires that, prior to residential occupancy, the City verify that attendance boundaries between the two school districts have been resolved, that the Development Agreement for the project provide for payment of school fees by project developers and that the applicable school district has been consulted with regard to siting of any new schools required to serve the Schaefer Ranch project. This action has been completed. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the currently proposed project. City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 15. Recreation Environmental Setting Project Subareas currently vacant and contains no City or regional parks. The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that local parks are planned to be constructed north of Subarea 1 and a regional trail is planned to extend through the approximate center of the Schaefer Ranch project. The regional trail has been completed and accepted by the East Bay Regional Park District. A staging area for the regional trail has been constructed in the eastern portion of Schaefer Ranch and is currently operational. Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 EIR contains the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to parks and recreation facilities. • Impact 7.6A identified an impact to open space management issues within the Schaefer Ranch, including balancing public use of open space areas and overuse of environmentally fragile areas. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6-1 requires preparation of an Open Space Management Plan that would identify open space areas, specific issues and funding sources for open space areas. • Impact 7.6B notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the need for additional parks within the Schaefer Ranch project to serve the anticipated increase of on-site residents. Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 requires the provision of local parks, a regional trail and payment of in-lieu park fees to the City of Dublin for neighborhood and community parks. Park sites offered to the City shall be reviewed for developability as a park in terms of geotechnical considerations, availability of services and other conditions. With adherence to these measures, Impact 7.6B will be less-than-significant. These facilities have been provided. • Impact 7.6C notes a potentially significant impact with regard to internal open space, including on-going maintenance, fire suppression, weed abatement, erosion control and slope stability. Mitigation Measure 7.6.5 requires the City of Dublin to impose conditions of approval on specific development projects within the Schaefer Ranch, including ownership of graded slopes with heights of 15 feet or greater, maintenance of access points to open space areas, provision of a permanent management entity for internal and perimeter open space areas. • Impact 7.6E relates to an impact with regard to the proposed regional trail and other on-site trail facilities being consistent with EBRPD standards. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6.8 and 7.6.9 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the City of Dublin to verify that regional trail facilities and linkages are consistent with EBRPD standards. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Project 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 not increase the use of nearby City and/or regional recreational facilities from that analyzed in the 1996 EIR, since the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the project be approved (420 dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No recreational facilities are proposed as part of the current project. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to use of parks would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The project site is served by Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial road that has been extended into Schaefer Ranch. Dublin Boulevard links Schaefer Ranch with central Dublin as well as providing regional access to the I-580 freeway. North-south access to and from the project site is provided by Schaefer Ranch Road that intersects with Dublin Canyon Road south of the I-580 freeway. Public transit to West Dublin is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority that operates WHEELS, a fixed and demand based bus service in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The closest bus line to Schaefer Ranch is Route 3 that extends as far west as the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive. Route 3 provides fixed weekday and Saturday service to Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda Business Park, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other points within Dublin. As noted in the Recreation section above, a regional multi-use trail has been constructed within the Schaefer Ranch site and dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. A trailhead has also been built. Dublin Boulevard has been designed to accommodate bicyclists (2008 Addendum). Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following traffic and circulation significant impacts and mitigation measures. • Impact 4A identifies a significant impact with regard to additional traffic at the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection causing this intersection to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.A.1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and requires developments within the Schaefer Ranch to contribute a fair share contribution to City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 15. Recreation Environmental Setting Project Subareas currently vacant and contains no City or regional parks. The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that local parks are planned to be constructed north of Subarea 1 and a regional trail is planned to extend through the approximate center of the Schaefer Ranch project. The regional trail has been completed and accepted by the East Bay Regional Park District. A staging area for the regional trail has been constructed in the eastern portion of Schaefer Ranch and is currently operational. Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 EIR contains the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to parks and recreation facilities. • Impact 7.6A identified an impact to open space management issues within the Schaefer Ranch, including balancing public use of open space areas and overuse of environmentally fragile areas. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6-1 requires preparation of an Open Space Management Plan that would identify open space areas, specific issues and funding sources for open space areas. • Impact 7.6B notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the need for additional parks within the Schaefer Ranch project to serve the anticipated increase of on-site residents. Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 requires the provision of local parks, a regional trail and payment of in-lieu park fees to the City of Dublin for neighborhood and community parks. Park sites offered to the City shall be reviewed for developability as a park in terms of geotechnical considerations, availability of services and other conditions. With adherence to these measures, Impact 7.6B will be less-than-significant. These facilities have been provided. • Impact 7.6C notes a potentially significant impact with regard to internal open space, including on-going maintenance, fire suppression, weed abatement, erosion control and slope stability. Mitigation Measure 7.6.5 requires the City of Dublin to impose conditions of approval on specific development projects within the Schaefer Ranch, including ownership of graded slopes with heights of 15 feet or greater, maintenance of access points to open space areas, provision of a permanent management entity for internal and perimeter open space areas. • Impact 7.6E relates to an impact with regard to the proposed regional trail and other on-site trail facilities being consistent with EBRPD standards. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6.8 and 7.6.9 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the City of Dublin to verify that regional trail facilities and linkages are consistent with EBRPD standards. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Project 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 not increase the use of nearby City and/or regional recreational facilities from that analyzed in the 1996 EIR, since the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the project be approved (420 dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No recreational facilities are proposed as part of the current project. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts with regard to use of parks would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? No New Impact. See item "a," above. 16. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The project site is served by Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial road that has been extended into Schaefer Ranch.Dublin Boulevard links Schaefer Ranch with central Dublin as well as providing regional access to the I-580 freeway. North-south access to and from the project site is provided by Schaefer Ranch Road that intersects with Dublin Canyon Road south of the 1-580 freeway. Public transit to West Dublin is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority that operates WHEELS, a fixed and demand based bus service in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The closest bus line to Schaefer Ranch is Route 3 that extends as far west as the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive. Route 3 provides fixed weekday and Saturday service to Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda Business Park, the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other points within Dublin. As noted in the Recreation section above, a regional multi-use trail has been constructed within the Schaefer Ranch site and dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. A trailhead has also been built. Dublin Boulevard has been designed to accommodate bicyclists (2008 Addendum). Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following traffic and circulation significant impacts and mitigation measures. • Impact 4A identifies a significant impact with regard to additional traffic at the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection causing this intersection to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.A.1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and requires developments within the Schaefer Ranch to contribute a fair share contribution to City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 a traffic signal at this intersection and associated widening of this intersection. This measure has been completed. • Impact 4B noted a significant impact with regard to future traffic at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.B.1 requires the Schaefer Ranch developer to contribute a fair share contribution to widening and improving this intersection to accommodate future project traffic. With such a payment, this impact will be less-than-significant. This mitigation measure has been completed. • Impact 4F identified an impact with regard to significant impacts at the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of Schaefer Ranch traffic. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.F.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the Schaefer Ranch project developer to contribute a fair share portion of the cost of installing a traffic signal at this intersection. This measure has been completed. • Impact 4G identified a significant impact at the Schaefer Ranch/Dublin Canyon Road intersection due to future traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level and requires the developer to contribute a fair share amount of the cost to signalizing this intersection and to making related improvements to Dublin Canyon Road. • Impact 4H notes a significant impact with regard to future traffic at Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.H.1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring the Schaefer Ranch developer install a traffic signal at this intersection. This measure has been completed. • Impact 4L identified a significant cumulative impact with regard to future traffic conditions at Eden Canyon Road/Palomares Canyon Road and a I-580 interchange due to future traffic plus the Schaefer Ranch's contribution to future traffic conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the project applicants to contribute a fair-share portion of future signal costs at the intersection of Eden Canyon Road/I-580 EB ramps and the intersection of Palo Verde Road/I-580 EB ramps. The fair-share contribution shall be determined by a future fee study based on trips using these intersections. • Impact 40 identified a potentially significant impact with regard to transit access to the Schaefer Ranch site, specifically that no pubic transit stops exist near the Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 requires the City of Dublin to consult with public transit districts to make necessary transit arrangements for future transit provisions. The City shall require a park-and-ride lot, if appropriate, as well as a transit stop, bus turning radii and other facilities to support transit. • Impact 4R identified a significant impact with the provision of pedestrian and bicycle access within the Schaefer Ranch development and with providing City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 regional Iinkages to existing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Mitigation Measure 4.R.1 through 4.R.3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring Dublin Boulevard to accommodate bicycles, extending the pedestrian/equestrian trial under I-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road and providing proper signs and markings for trail crossings. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections,streets, highways and other components? No New Impact. The proposed project would slightly reduce peak hour vehicle trips to local and regional roads than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. This would be 18 fewer AM peak hour trips and 18 fewer PM peak hour trips. This is shown on Table 2, below. Table 2. Residential Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Dwelling Units A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips Trips Included in 1996 EIR Single Family- 400 296 401 detached Single Family- 74 33 41 Attached Total Trips -- 329 442 Proposed Development Single Family- 420 311 424 detached Total Proposed Trips -- 344 424 Net Change -18 -18 Note:Trip rates based on Table 4-5 contained in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR, updated by City of Dublin staff(2015). Trip rates as documented in 1996 EIR. There would be fewer peak trips than analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less of an impact to roadways than the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. As required by various mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR, the project developer has installed a traffic signal system at the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection as well as paid fair share contributions to improvements at the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon Road intersection, the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection and the Eden Canyon Road- Palomares Road/I-580 interchange. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 a traffic signal at this intersection and associated widening of this intersection. This measure has been completed. • Impact 4B noted a significant impact with regard to future traffic at the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.B.1 requires the Schaefer Ranch developer to contribute a fair share contribution to widening and improving this intersection to accommodate future project traffic. With such a payment, this impact will be less-than-significant. This mitigation measure has been completed. • Impact 4F identified an impact with regard to significant impacts at the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of Schaefer Ranch traffic. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.F.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the Schaefer Ranch project developer to contribute a fair share portion of the cost of installing a traffic signal at this intersection. This measure has been completed. • Impact 4G identified a significant impact at the Schaefer Ranch/Dublin Canyon Road intersection due to future traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 reduces this impact to a Iess-than-significant level and requires the developer to contribute a fair share amount of the cost to signalizing this intersection and to making related improvements to Dublin Canyon Road. • Impact 4H notes a significant impact with regard to future traffic at Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.H.1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring the Schaefer Ranch developer install a traffic signal at this intersection. This measure has been completed. • Impact 4L identified a significant cumulative impact with regard to future traffic conditions at Eden Canyon Road/Palomares Canyon Road and a I-580 interchange due to future traffic plus the Schaefer Ranch's contribution to future traffic conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the project applicants to contribute a fair-share portion of future signal costs at the intersection of Eden Canyon Road/I-580 EB ramps and the intersection of Palo Verde Road/I-580 EB ramps. The fair-share contribution shall be determined by a future fee study based on trips using these intersections. • Impact 40 identified a potentially significant impact with regard to transit access to the Schaefer Ranch site, specifically that no pubic transit stops exist near the Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 requires the City of Dublin to consult with public transit districts to make necessary transit arrangements for future transit provisions. The City shall require a park-and-ride lot, if appropriate, as well as a transit stop, bus turning radii and other facilities to support transit. • Impact 4R identified a significant impact with the provision of pedestrian and bicycle access within the Schaefer Ranch development and with providing City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 regional linkages to existing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Mitigation Measure 4.R.1 through 4.R.3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring Dublin Boulevard to accommodate bicycles, extending the pedestrian/equestrian trial under I-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road and providing proper signs and markings for trail crossings. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Conflict with applicable plans related to the effectiveness of the circulation system, including all modes of travel, including intersections,streets, highways and other components? No New Impact. The proposed project would slightly reduce peak hour vehicle trips to local and regional roads than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. This would be 18 fewer AM peak hour trips and 18 fewer PM peak hour trips. This is shown on Table 2, below. Table 2. Residential Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Dwelling Units A.M.Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Trips Trips Included in 1996 EIR Single Family- 400 296 401 detached Single Family- 74 33 41 Attached Total Trips -- 329 442 Proposed Development Single Family- 420 311 424 detached Total Proposed Trips -- 344 424 Net Change -18 -18 Note:Trip rates based on Table 4-5 contained in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR, updated by City of Dublin staff(2015). Trip rates as documented in 1996 EIR. There would be fewer peak trips than analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less of an impact to roadways than the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. As required by various mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR, the project developer has installed a traffic signal system at the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection as well as paid fair share contributions to improvements at the Silvergate Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon Road intersection, the Dublin Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection and the Eden Canyon Road- Palomares Road/I-580 interchange. City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Based on discussions with the Dublin Public Works Department, the above improvements have constructed, have been bonded for, or fees have been paid to the City as required by the various 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures. Thus, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 would result. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact. Although the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, the project would not generate a minimum of 100 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips, which is the threshold of significance for the local congestion management plan. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. Since the proposed project includes residential uses, it would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. Future residential development that would be allowed by the project approvals would be served by existing roadways and access easements that have been designed to City engineering standards and criteria. As identified in the Project Description, the applicant has requested a modification of 1996 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.G.1. Among other requirements, this measure required the project applicant to contribute a fair share portion of financing a traffic signal at the Schaefer Road/ Dublin Canyon Road intersection. Alameda County Public Works Department have submitted documentation that signal warrants in this location have not been met. The project applicant has requested that Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 be modified,but that the project applicant be responsible for improvements at this intersection, including a contribution for a future signal when and if warrants are met. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result with respect to design hazards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Dwellings included in the proposed project within Subareas 1 and 2 would be served by existing roads that would provide adequate emergency access. No new or more severe significant impacts with regard to emergency access would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No New Impact. The overall Schaefer Ranch project includes features that promotes pedestrian and bicycle use as required by Mitigation Measures 4.R.1 —4.R.3, including allowing bicycle traffic along Dublin Boulevard and including sidewalks along major sidewalks No new City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 or more severe significant impacts regarding alternative transportation modes would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is currently served by the following service providers: • Potable water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD) • Sewage collection and treatment: DSRSD • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries. • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell). Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 EIR contains the following significant impacts and mitigation measures with regard to utilities and service systems. • Impacts 7.1A and 7.1B identified significant impacts with regard to lack of a water system on the project site and constraints on water supply. These impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels by adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.1.1 through 7.1.8. These measures require incorporation of water conservation features into the project, designing and constructing water systems to meet DSRSD engineering standards, construction of a new water reservoir on the site, issuance of a will-serve water service letter from DSRSD, appropriate phasing of the water system and similar elements. • Impact 7.2A was identified as a significant impact related to the adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require issuance of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD indicating that adequate wastewater disposal capacity is available, requiring the applicant to update the local wastewater collection system master plan, requires the project developer to obtain wastewater connections from DSRSD, requires use of recycled water for open space areas, requires annexation of the Ranch to DSRSD, requires that all wastewater facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards, requires that treated effluent from the project meet Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and other related items. • Impact 7.2C noted a significant impact with regard to disposal of treated wastewater that will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4. City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Based on discussions with the Dublin Public Works Department, the above improvements have constructed, have been bonded for, or fees have been paid to the City as required by the various 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures. Thus, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 would result. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including level of service standards, travel demand measures and other applicable standards? No New Impact. Although the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, the project would not generate a minimum of 100 P.M. peak hour vehicle trips, which is the threshold of significance for the local congestion management plan. No new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result. c) Change in air traffic patterns? No New Impact. Since the proposed project includes residential uses, it would have no impact on air traffic patterns. No new or more severe impacts would result with respect to this topic than was previously analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? No New Impact. Future residential development that would be allowed by the project approvals would be served by existing roadways and access easements that have been designed to City engineering standards and criteria. As identified in the Project Description, the applicant has requested a modification of 1996 EIR Mitigation Measure 4.G.1. Among other requirements, this measure required the project applicant to contribute a fair share portion of financing a traffic signal at the Schaefer Road/ Dublin Canyon Road intersection. Alameda County Public Works Department have submitted documentation that signal warrants in this location have not been met. The project applicant has requested that Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 be modified, but that the project applicant be responsible for improvements at this intersection, including a contribution for a future signal when and if warrants are met. Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result with respect to design hazards. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No New Impact. Dwellings included in the proposed project within Subareas 1 and 2 would be served by existing roads that would provide adequate emergency access. No new or more severe significant impacts with regard to emergency access would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No New Impact. The overall Schaefer Ranch project includes features that promotes pedestrian and bicycle use as required by Mitigation Measures 4.R.1 —4.R.3, including allowing bicycle traffic along Dublin Boulevard and including sidewalks along major sidewalks No new City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 or more severe significant impacts regarding alternative transportation modes would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 17. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The project site is currently served by the following service providers: • Potable water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District(DSRSD) • Sewage collection and treatment: DSRSD • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries. • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell). Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 EIR contains the following significant impacts and mitigation measures with regard to utilities and service systems. • Impacts 7.1A and 7.1B identified significant impacts with regard to lack of a water system on the project site and constraints on water supply. These impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels by adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.1.1 through 7.1.8. These measures require incorporation of water conservation features into the project, designing and constructing water systems to meet DSRSD engineering standards, construction of a new water reservoir on the site, issuance of a will-serve water service letter from DSRSD, appropriate phasing of the water system and similar elements. • Impact 7.2A was identified as a significant impact related to the adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require issuance of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD indicating that adequate wastewater disposal capacity is available, requiring the applicant to update the local wastewater collection system master plan, requires the project developer to obtain wastewater connections from DSRSD, requires use of recycled water for open space areas, requires annexation of the Ranch to DSRSD, requires that all wastewater facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards, requires that treated effluent from the project meet Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and other related items. • Impact 7.2C noted a significant impact with regard to disposal of treated wastewater that will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4. City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 7.2D identified a significant impact with regard to wastewater improvements. Mitigation Measure 7.2.6 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. • Impact 7.9A noted a significant impact with regard to solid waste capacity. Mitigation Measure 7.9.1 The above mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. Mitigation Measure 7.2.8 contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR requires the project to meet treated effluent standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the will-serve letter issued by DSRSD for the overall Schaefer Ranch project, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exists to serve development planned in the Schaefer Ranch development so that no new or more severe significant impacts would result. The currently proposed project would generate less wastewater than the total number of dwellings and the commercial development originally planned and approved for this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch development. The local service provider recently documented that adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed project and would not exceed regional water quality bard discharge standards (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD engineer, 12/17/14). Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic than were analyzed in the previous EIR prepared for the Schaefer Ranch project. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. Water and wastewater extensions from existing utility facilities would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed for the two subareas. According to a representative of DSRSD, the need for increased water, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe significant impact than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR document and as contained in current General Plan land use build-out assumptions (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 12/17/14). The issue of wastewater treatment facilities is addressed in subsection"a," above. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to water and wastewater provision than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. Impacts related to drainage impacts and mitigation measures from the 1996 EIR are contained in Section 8 of this Initial Study. Based on the analysis contained in that section, no new or more severe significant impacts related to storm drainage facilities beyond those set forth in the 1996 EIR have been identified. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. See item "b," above. City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1 contained in the 1996 EIR reduced the impact to solid waste facilities as a result of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires the solid waste provider to issue a will-serve letter prior to issuance of a tentative subdivision map. Based on information provided by Amador Valley Industries, the franchised solid waste and recycle hauler for the City of Dublin, adequate capacity exists in the Altamont Landfill to accommodate the quantity of solid waste generated by this project (per. comm., Karen Brighi, Amador Valley Industries, 7/21/08). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR with regard to solid waste would occur. 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 should the proposed development applications be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 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 substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory on the Schaefer Ranch site area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed project would cause no new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in the previous EIR. b) Does 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. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with regard to secondary impacts on native plants, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and cumulative loss of vegetation and wildlife. The proposed project would not result in additional or more severe significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City in the 1996 EIR. c) Does 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. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 • Impact 7.2D identified a significant impact with regard to wastewater improvements. Mitigation Measure 7.2.6 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. • Impact 7.9A noted a significant impact with regard to solid waste capacity. Mitigation Measure 7.9.1 The above mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed project. Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? No New Impact. Mitigation Measure 7.2.8 contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR requires the project to meet treated effluent standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the will-serve letter issued by DSRSD for the overall Schaefer Ranch project, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exists to serve development planned in the Schaefer Ranch development so that no new or more severe significant impacts would result. The currently proposed project would generate less wastewater than the total number of dwellings and the commercial development originally planned and approved for this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch development. The local service provider recently documented that adequate wastewater treatment capacity exists to serve the proposed project and would not exceed regional water quality bard discharge standards (source: Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD engineer, 12/17/14). Therefore, no new or more severe significant impacts are anticipated with respect to this topic than were analyzed in the previous EIR prepared for the Schaefer Ranch project. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? No New Impact. Water and wastewater extensions from existing utility facilities would need to be constructed to serve the amount of development proposed for the two subareas. According to a representative of DSRSD, the need for increased water, wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the construction of the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe significant impact than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR document and as contained in current General Plan land use build-out assumptions (source: Stan Kolozdie, DSRSD, 12/17/14). The issue of wastewater treatment facilities is addressed in subsection"a," above. Overall, no new or more severe significant impacts would occur with regard to water and wastewater provision than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? No New Impact. Impacts related to drainage impacts and mitigation measures from the 1996 EIR are contained in Section 8 of this Initial Study. Based on the analysis contained in that section, no new or more severe significant impacts related to storm drainage facilities beyond those set forth in the 1996 EIR have been identified. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? No New Impact. See item "b," above. City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? No New Impact. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? No New Impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1 contained in the 1996 EIR reduced the impact to solid waste facilities as a result of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires the solid waste provider to issue a will-serve letter prior to issuance of a tentative subdivision map. Based on information provided by Amador Valley Industries, the franchised solid waste and recycle hauler for the City of Dublin, adequate capacity exists in the Altamont Landfill to accommodate the quantity of solid waste generated by this project (per. comm., Karen Brighi, Amador Valley Industries, 7/21/08). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1, no new or more severe significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR with regard to solid waste would occur. 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 should the proposed development applications be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 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 substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory on the Schaefer Ranch site area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed project would cause no new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in the previous EIR. b) Does 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. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with regard to secondary impacts on native plants, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and cumulative loss of vegetation and wildlife. The proposed project would not result in additional or more severe significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City in the 1996 EIR. c) Does 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. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Luke Sims, AICP, Community Development Director (former) Jeff Baker, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Captain Tom McCarthy, Police Services Department Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, senior engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Doug Chen, Discovery Builders References Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, 2012 California Depai intent of Toxic Substances Control, website, November 2014 CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, 2008. Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 2/18/14 Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, WPM Planning Team, 1996 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin. City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics 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 (former) Jeff Baker, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director Michael Porto, Project Manager Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney Captain Tom McCarthy, Police Services Department Bonnie Terra, Alameda County Fire Department Dublin San Rainon Services District Rhodora Biagton, senior engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Doug Chen, Discovery Builders References Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, 2012 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, November 2014 CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, 2008. Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 2/18/14 Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, WPM Planning Team, 1996 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin. City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch Unit 3 October 2015 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 Schaefer Ranch EIR as significant and unavoidable (Resolution No. 76-96, July 9, 1996). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urbanization of the Schaefer Ranch through approval of a General Plan Amendment and the Schaefer Ranch Planned Development Zoning and Land Use and Development Plan. The City Council is currently considering a General Plan Amendment, a PD rezoning amendment and related development applications for Unit 3 of the Schaefer Ranch. More specifically, the project involves a resubdivision of a portion of Unit 3 at the terminus of Dublin Boulevard, known as Schaefer Way. The resubdivision would create 18 residential lots in lieu of six existing lots on the site. The project also involves a modification of Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 contained in the 1996 EIR that required the project developer to pay a fair share of the cost to signalize the Dublin Canyon Road/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection. The proposed action would delete this portion of Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 since it has been documented by Alameda County Public Works Department that signal warrants are not met. The area described above is in Schaefer Ranch and was addressed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, the City prepared an Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR for the current project described above. The Addendum is based on a completed Initial Study that identified no additional significant unavoidable impacts for the current project; however, the Schaefer Ranch EIR identified three significant unavoidable impacts, for which statements of overriding considerations were adopted for the related 1996 project approvals. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must again adopt overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the current Project.' The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the previous approvals and by the environmental protection measures included in the current project design or adopted through the project approvals, to be implemented with the development of the project on the sites described above. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the current project on the above described sites carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the Schaefer Ranch 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, 1"public officials must still go on the record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis original.) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency 103 Cal. App. 4th 98. (2002) 2524514.1 Page 1 of environmental, land use, or other considerations that support approval of the current project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR for future development of Schaefer Ranch apply to the current project. Vegetation and Wildlife, Impact 6E. Secondary effects on native plants and wildlife. Air Quality Impact 12D. Regional pollutant emissions. Cumulative Impact 18.4D. Cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Schaefer Ranch project approvals against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The City Council now balances those unavoidable impacts that apply to future development on the current project site against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the current project as further set forth below. The City declares that each one of the benefits included below, independent of any other benefits, would be sufficient to justify approval of the current project and override the current project's significant and unavoidable impacts. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the current project are found in these findings, and in the record as a whole for the current project. The current project will further the urbanization of the Schaefer Ranch area as planned through the comprehensive framework established in the original Schaefer Ranch Land Use and Development Plan. The current project provides for approximately 10.26 acres of permanent open space on the west side of Schaefer Ranch that does not currently exist. Future lots that will be allowed by the Project would be of a size and configuration more consistent with other nearby residential lots in Schaefer Ranch. By adding new dwelling units, the Project will assist the City in providing unique lotting opportunities and housing options as set forth in the adopted Housing Element of the General Plan. The project will create new revenue for the City, County, and State through the transfer and reassessment of property due to the improvement of the property and the corresponding increase in value. The project will contribute funds to construct schools, parks, and other community facilities that are a benefit Citywide. Development of the project site will provide construction employment opportunities for Dublin residents. 2524514.1 Page 2 of