HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachmt 7-Sec 5-7 Pgs 137-1485.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The California Environmental Quality Act requires identification and
comparative analysis of feasible alternatives to the proposed Project which have
the potential of achieving most of the project objectives, but would avoid or
substantially lessen any significant impacts of the project.
The following discussion considers alternative development scenarios. Through
comparison of these alternatives to the preferred project, the advantages of each
can be weighed and considered by the public and by decision-makers. CEQA
Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by the rule of reason" and
require the EIR to set forth a range of alternatives necessary to permit a
reasoned choice.
5.1 Alternatives Identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR
The Eastern Dublin EIR was prepared for a General Plan Amendment
encompassing approximately 6,920 acres of land and for a Specific Plan for 3,328
acres within the General Plan Amendment area. The General PIan Amendment
and Specific Plan (GPA/SP) proposed a variety of types and densities of housing,
as well as employment-generating commercial, campus office and other land
uses. Other portions of the planning area were designated schools, open space
and other community facilities. Protection for natural features of the planning
area, including riparian corridors and principal ridgelands, was provided through
restrictive land use designations and policies. The land use plan reflected the
Eastern Dublin Project objectives as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
Section 2.5.
As required by CEQA, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified project alternatives that
could eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the Eastern Dublin Project. The
four identified alternatives included: No Project, Reduced Planning Area,
Reduced Land Use Intensities and No Development. These are described below:
No Project Alternative. The No Project alternative evaluated potential
development of the GPA/SP area under the then-applicable Dublin General Plan
for the unincorporated portion of the planning area under the Alameda County
General Plan.
Reduced Planning Area Alternative. The Reduced Planning Area Alternative
evaluated development of the Specific Plan as proposed, but assumed
development beyond the Specific Plan only to the Dublin Sphere of Influence
boundary. The effect of this alternative was to exclude Upper and Lower Doolan
Canyon properties from the project.
Reduced Land Use Intensities Alternative. The Reduced Land Use Intensities
Alternative evaluated potential development of the entire GPA/SP area, but
reduced some higher traffic generating commercial uses in favor of increased
residential dwellings.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 137
City of Dublin November 2004
No Development. The No Development Alternative assumed no development
would occur in the planning area other than agricultural, open space and similar
land uses then in place.
The Dublin City Council certified the Eastern Dublin EIR on May 10, 1993, under
Resolution No. 51-93. The City Council found the No Project, Reduced Land Use
Intensities and No Development alternatives infeasible and then approved a
modification of the Reduced Planning Area Alternative rather than the GPA/SP
project as proposed (Resolution No. 53-93). This alternative was approved based
on City Council findings that this alternative land use plan would reduce land use
impacts, would not disrupt the Doolan Canyon community, would reduce
growth-inducing impacts on agricultural lands and would reduce traffic,
infrastructure and noise impacts of the originally proposed Eastern Dublin
Project. Even under this alternative project, however, significant unavoidable
impacts would remain. Therefore, upon approval of the GPA/SP, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 53-
93).
Alternatives selected for analysis in this supplemental document include:
Alternative 1: "No Project" (required by CEQA to be considered).
Alternative 2: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
under existing Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Land Use
designations
Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
with Neighborhood Commercial (NC} and Public/Semi-Public (P-SP) land
uses
Alternatives are described and evaluated below.
5.2 No Project
CEQA requires an analysis of a "no Project" alternative. Under this alternative, it
is assumed that all of the properties would remain in the unincorporated portion
of Alameda County and no development would occur on any of the parcels
comprising the Project area. Dwellings and other struchzres would remain as
they currently exist. However, the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area would be
implemented, since this open space area is a required mitigation for Loss of
wetlands and habitat elsewhere in Eastern Dublin.
This alternative would avoid the range of environmental impacts described in
the Eastern Dublin EIR, including:
Aesthetics and Light and Glare: There would be no aesthetic change to the
Project area. Open spaces views and vistas would remain as they
presently exist. Existing levels of light and glare, although minimal, would
remain.
Air Quality: Existing source of air emissions would remain. There would
be no short-term air quality impacts associated with construction of new
buildings and other public and private improvements envisioned in the
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 138
City of Dublin November 2004
Master Plan. The Project's contribution to long-term, cumulative air
quality emissions would not change, since no new auto traffic would be
attracted to the site.
• Biological Resources: There would be less-than-significant impacts to
existing onsite biological resources, since only limited additional
development would occur within the Project area that would be allowed
under the East County Area Plan (ECAP) and Alameda County zoning
standards.
• Cultural Resources: There would be no impacts to cultural resources since
construction and disruption of the soil would not occur.
• Geology and Soils: Limited or no excavation, grading or related impacts
would occur so that significant erosion impacts would not occur. Existing
building improvements would be exposed to the potential for seismic
hazards.
• Water and Hydrology: Existing hydrologic and drainage patterns would
remain unchanged.
• Land Use: Land use within the Project area would remain as presently
constituted, including existing buildings, agricultural and other uses.
Future development within the Project area would be governed by
Alameda County standards, which would be limited to large lot
residential and agricultural.
• Noise: Existing noise generators on and near the Project area would
remain as currently constituted.
• Population and Housing: There would be limited increases in on-site
population over current area population as allowed under the Alameda
County Area Plan and zoning designations.
• Transportation, parking and circulation: Existing traffic generation and use of
nearby streets would continue as currently found. Widening of Tassajara
Road along the Dublin Ranch West Project frontage would be funded by
other projects.
• Utilities and Community Services: No new or increased demand would be
created for utilities and community services, since the existing level of
development would remain.
• Recreation: There would be very limited increased use or demand for Iocal
or regional recreational facilities since the population of the site would not
significantly increase.
The No Project alternative would not meet Project objectives of annexing
presently unincorporated properties into the City of Dublin and Dublin San
Ramon Services area, nor the objective of constructing up to 1,034 dwelling units
on the Dublin Ranch West site within the Project area.
5.3 Alternative 2: Reorganization and Development Under Existing General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
The second alternative assumes that all of the properties would annex to the City
of Dublin and DSRSD. Development on the Dublin Ranch West property would
occur as envisioned in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would include 817
residential units (a mix of Low Density, Medium Density and Medium High
Density dwellings types), 10,454 square feet of Neighborhood Commercial floor
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 139
City of Dublin November 2004
space, two Neighborhood Parks (11.8 acres), a Neighborhood Square (2.8 acres)
and 70 acres of Open Space. No development is anticipated for the Bragg or
Sperfslage properties.
Anticipated impacts of Alternative 2 would be:
Aesthetics: Anticipated aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of
Alternative 2 would be the same as included in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
With adherence to mitigation measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, all aesthetic impacts of the proposed Project would be reduced to a
level of insignificance.
Air Qualify: Alternative 2 would generate the same air quality impacts as
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIlZ. Although dust emissions during
construction phases of the Project and mobile sources of CO could be
mitigated to an insignificant level, impacts related to vehicle emissions
from construction equipment, mobile sources of ROG and NOX and
stationary source emissions could not be mitigated to an insignificant
level.
Biological Resources: The same general type and level of impacts would be
created as the proposed Project since approximately the same area of
development would occur within the Project area. Impacts to upland
species and habitat areas would be reduced to aless-than-significant level
through adherence to mitigation measures set forth in Section 3.7 of the
EDSP EIR and supplemental mitigations that would need to be developed
to apply to the California Tiger Salamander, Congdon's Tarplant and
other species and their habitats that have been state or federally listed
since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR. Although portions of
Tassajara Creek could be impacted to accommodate Specific Plan land
uses, adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin
EIR would reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance.
Land Use: Land use impacts in the Project area and surrounding areas.
would be the same as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Significant and
unavoidable land use impacts regarding the cumulative loss of agriculture
and open space lands were identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR and would
apply to this Alternative.
Population and Housing: The same amount on-site population and non-
residential (commercial) space would be created under Alternative 2 as
identified and analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIlZ. All population and
housing impacts assoaated with the adoption of the General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan could be reduced to an insignificant level.
Transportation and Circulation: Proposed development of Dublin Ranch
West under Alternative 2 would be the same as analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. Significant and unavoidable traffic and transportation impacts
would remain under with regard to the I-580 and I-680 freeways, I-580
freeway interchanges at Tassajara Road, Fallon Road and Airway
Boulevard, cumulative freeway traffic, Santa Rita Road / I-580 eastbound
intersection ramps, and cumulative impacts to Tassajara Road. All other
traffic and transportation impacts could be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 140
City of Dublin November 2004
Utilities and Community Services: These impacts were examined in the
Eastern Dublin EIR, with the exception of demand for utility extensions
and consumption of non-renewal natural resources, all utility and
community service impacts could be reduced to a level of insignificance
with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR.
Recreation: The same type and level of intensity related to park and
recreation impacts would occur under Alternative 2 as discussed in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. All recreation impacts could be reduced to a level of
insignificance with adherence to mitigation measures identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR.
This alternative would not meet the Project objectives to increase residential
development potential on the Project site and to protect Tassajara Creek by
removing nearby urban-type land uses. This alternative would also retain the
current 9.7-avre planned Elementary School site that the Dublin Unified School
District has determined is no longer needed.
5.4 Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of Dublin Ranch West
with Revised Neighborhood Park Location
Alternative 3 assumes that all of the properties would annex to the City of
Dublin and DSRSD. Development on the Dublin Ranch West property
would include the same uses as the proposed Project, including 1,034
dwellings at varying densities, but would also include relocation of an
approximate 7.76-acre (net) neighborhood park on the southerly portion
of the Project site. The current 8.7 acre (gross) park site would be
designated for residential uses; but as noted above, the designation
"swap" would not increase the number of proposed units. Preliminarily,
the park would be located on either side of Tassajara Creek and could
include softball or soccer fields, a tennis complex, volleyball facilities,
picnic areas and potential off-street parking. This alternative would also
include a 1.2-acre site for a future Public/Semi-Public facility, which is not
specified. The proposed general plan amendment, specific plan
amendment and Stage 1 Planned Development prezoning requests would
need to be modified to accommodate Alternative 3.
Anticipated impacts associated with this alternative would include:
Aesthetics: Anticipated aesthetic impacts related to the implementation of
Alternative 3 would be the same as the Project, since approximately the
same amount of development would occur. The proposed relocated
neighborhood park would need to be reviewed for consistency with the
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program. With
adherence to mitigation measures as set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and Specific Plan Community Design standards, all aesthetic impacts
would be less-than-significant.
Air Quality: Alternative 3 would generate the same air quality impacts as
the proposed Project. Although dust emissions during construction phases
of the Project and mobile sources of CO could be mitigated to an
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 141
City of Dublin November 2004
insignificant level, impacts related to vehicle emissions from construction
equipment, mobile sources of ROG and NOX and stationary source
emissions could likely still not be mitigated to an insignificant level.
Ozone emissions and the Project's contribution to regional, cumulative air
quality would also be significant and unavoidable impacts.
• Biological Resources: Since the same area of land would be disturbed for
development in Alternative 3 as the proposed Project, impacts to
biological resources would be approximately the same. The design of the
proposed relocated neighborhood park would need to be reviewed to
ensure that stormwater runoff and use of landscape care products are
limited to minimize runoff and related water quality impacts to Tassajara
Creek.
• Land Use: Land use impacts in the Project area and surrounding areas
would be approximately the same as analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR,
since current land use designations include neighborhood park use. The
proposed park adjacent to Tassajara Creek would likely be more
consistent with the proposed Open Space designation that would be
applied to the Creek corridor than the Project's proposed residential uses.
Additional amendments would be needed to the General Plan and Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate the relocated park under this
alternative.
• Population and Housing: Population and Housing impacts under Alternative
3 would be the same as the proposed Project, since the dwelling unit count
would be the same.
• Transportation and Circulation: Minimal if any additional traffic would be
expected under Alternative 3 than the proposed Project, since the number
of dwelling units would not change from the proposed Project. Minor but
less-than-significant increases could be expected for the proposed 1.2-acre
Public/Semi-Public use on the site under this Alternative. The Projects
traffic contribution to local freeways would continue to be significant and
unavoidable.
• Utilities and Community Services: Implementation of Alternative 3 would
result in approximately the same impacts as under the proposed Project
since generally the same land use pattern would be implemented.
Demand for utility extensions and consumption of non-renewal natural
resources would likely still be a significant and unavoidable impact as
identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
• Recreation: A somewhat lesser impact to local and regional recreational
resources would occur under Alternative as the proposed Project, since a
larger park would be provided (7.66-net acres under Alternative 3 versus
6.8 net acres in the proposed Project}. The amount of local park deficit
would be reduced from 1.9 acres in the proposed Project to 1.04 net acres
under Alternative 3. The relocated neighborhood park would also provide
for enhanced recreation opportunities near Tassajara Creek and the multi-
use trail. The amount of parkland proposed in this Alternative would still
not comply with the acreage of Neighborhood Park and Neighborhood
Square facilities anticipated for the Dublin Ranch West property in both
the EDSP and City of Dublin Park and Recreation Master Plan and
Supplemental Mitigation PARK-1 would apply to this Alternative.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental E1R Page 142
City of Dublin November 2004
This alternative would meet the Project objectives of constructing additional
residential dwelling units within the Project area by using the existing
Elementary School site no longer needed by the school district. This alternative
would provide additional protection and an amenity to Tassajara Creek through
construction of a neighborhood park adjacent to the creek rather than
residences. A greater amount of parkland would also be provided, although a
deficit would still occur. It is generally consistent with the General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan intent for urban development on the Project site but
would still require amendments to the General and Specific Plan would be
needed for modified land use types and locations.
5.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126 (d) (4) of the State of California CEQA Guidelines states that if the
environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall
also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project alternative, would result in fewer and
less intensive environmental impacts than either the proposed Project or
Alternatives 2 or 3, and would therefore be the Environmentally Superior
Alternative. As between the remaining alternative, Alternative 2 would result in
slightly Less traffic impacts but would not provide protection for Tassajara Creek
by modifying existing land use designations within and adjacent to the creek.
Alternative 3, which would contain an approximate 7.7-acre neighborhood park
on either side of Tassajara Creek, would provide greater protection for Tassajara
Creek and enhance aesthetic qualities adjacent to the Creek. This Alternative
would require modifications to the General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments
to implement. Therefore, Alternative 3 would be the next most Environmentally
Superior Alternative.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 143
City of Dublin November 2004
6.0 Required CEQA Discussion
This section of the DEIR addresses the potential cumulative impacts of
implementing the proposed Project, as required by CEQA.
6.1 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined by CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2) as
those which taken individually may be minor but, when combined with
similar impacts associated with existing development, proposed
development projects and planned but not built projects, have the
potential to generate more substantial impacts. CEQA requires that
cumulative impacts be evaluated when they are significant and that the
discussion describe the severity of the impacts and the estimated
likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion of
cumulative impacts contained in an EIR need not be as detailed as that
provided for the Project alone.
A number of cumulative impacts were identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. Those related to this Project include:
• Cumulative loss of agricultural and open space lands (Impact 3.1 / F)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between
Tassajara Road and Fallon Road (Impact 3.3/A)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between I-680
freeway and Dougherty Road (Impact 3.3/B)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 freeway operations between
Tassajara Road and Airway Boulevard Impact 3.3/C)
• Cumulative degradation of I-680 freeway operations north of I-580
(Impact 3.3 / D)
• Cumulative degradation of I-580 east of Airway Boulevard and
between Dougherty Road and Hacienda Boulevard (Impact 3.3/D)
• Cumulative degradation of Dublin Boulevard intersections with
Hacienda Drive and Tassajara Road (Impact 3.3/M)
• Cumulative degradation of Tassajara Road intersections with
Gleason Road, Fallon Road and Transit Spine (renamed to Central
Boulevard) (Impact 3.3/N)
• Increased solid waste production and impact on solid waste
faalities (Impact 3.4 O and P)
• Future lack of wastewater treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5 / E)
• Increase in demand for water (Impact 3.5 / ~
• Direct habitat loss (Imapct3.7/A)
• Loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat (Impact 3 / 7 / C)
• Construction equipment /vehicle emissions (Impact 3.11 / B)
• Mobile source emissions of reactive organic gasses and oxides of
nitrogen (Impact 3.11 / C)
• Stationary source emissions (Impact 3.11 / E)
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 144
City of Dublin November 2004
The Project would create one more severe cumulative significant impact
beyond that identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This is Supplemental
Impact AQ-3, exceedances of Bay Area Air Quality Management District's
thresholds of significance for ozone precursors.
6.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those impacts that cannot be mitigated to a
less-than-significant level. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a
proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts in considering whether to approve the
Project. If the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the anticipated unavoidable
impacts, the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable by the Lead
Agency. To approve the Project without significantly reducing or eliminating an
adverse impact, the Lead Agency must make a Statement of Overriding Consideration
supported by the information in the record.
Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Project, the City Council adopted a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the
Eastern Dublin EIR. (Resolution 53-93, May 10, 1993.) Any approval of the current
Project would likewise require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
for the significant unavoidable supplemental impacts identified in this DSEIR, i.e.,
Supplemental Impacts AQ-3 (regional ozone air quality emission), AQ-3 (cumulatively
considerable regional air emissions) and TRA-2 (p.m. peak hour impacts to the
Dougherty Rd /Dublin Blvd. and the Hacienda Dr. /Dublin Blvd. intersections under
Buildout conditions). Pursuant to the recent Citizens for a Better Environment case, the
Statement of Overriding Considerations would also be required to address the
significant unavoidable impacts from the Eastern Dublin EIR that are related to the
Project.
Significant and unavoidable impacts identified in this Supplement are all cumulative
impacts. These impacts were also previously identified as cumulatively significant and
unavoidable in the Eastern Dublin EIR.
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 145
City of Dublin November 2004
7.2 References
The following documents, in addition to those included in the Appendix,
were used in the preparation of this DEIR.
Jennings, Mark R. and M. P. Hayes, 1994
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, Zeiner,
Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, 1990
. C.,
F. Laudenslayer,
Biological Resources Reports, Casamira Valley, Dublin, California, Wetlands
Research Associates, 2003
City of Dublin Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan,
1993, Wallace Roberts and Todd, as amended
1993, Wallace Roberts and Todd, including supplements
City of Dublin Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report,
2002
Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California,
California Native Plant Society, 2004
Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North part of its range, H. T.
Harvey & Associates, Inc., 1997
Dublin Ranch West, California Tiger Salamander survey and salvaee
revort. Winter 2003-2004. Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin c/ o Martin
Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., 2004
Dublin Ranch Tassa~ara Creek Conservation Area Habitat Management Plan,
Prepared for Martin W. Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., March 2003
Dublin Ranch West Rare Plant Surveys Report (Summer 2002-Summer 2003),
Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin c/ o Martin Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates,
Inc., 2003
Dublin Ranch West Biological Resources Report, Prepared for Ms. Jennifer Lin
c / o Martin Inderbitzen, H.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., 2002
Dublin Ranch San Toaquin Kit Fox Survey (Revised), H.T. Harvey & Associates,
Inc., 1997
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 147
City of Dublin November 2004
7.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
7.1 Persons and Organizations
EIR Preparers
The following individuals participated in the preparation of this
document.
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner (project manager)
Tom Fraser, Wetlands Research Associates (biology)
Shannon Lucas, Wetlands Research Associates (biology)
Donald Ballanti (air quality)
Gordon Lum, P.E., TJKM Associates (traffic and transportation)
Jane Maxwell, Blue Ox Associates (graphics)
City of Dublin Staff
Eddie Peabody, Jr. AICP, Community Development Director
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
Jeri Ram, AICP, Planning Manager
Michael Porto, Consulting Planner
Pierce MacDonald, Associate Planner
Mike Stella, P.E. Associate Civil Engineer (former)
Ray Kuzbari, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Diane Lowart, Parks and Community Services Director
Scott McMillan, Fire Department
Rose Macias, Police Department
Applicant Consulting Team
Martin Inderbitzen-applicant attorney
Rod Andrade-MacKay &Somps, civil engineer
Connie Goldade-MacKay &Somps, planner
Other Agencies and Organizations Contacted
East Bay Regional Park District-Larry Tong, Steve Fiala
Dublin Unified School District-Kim McNeeley, Gene Turner, Blair Aas
Dublin San Ramon Services District-Greg Taylor
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency-Vivian
Housen
Pacific Gas & Electric-Buck Jones, Shelia Cebalos, Bill Salvador
Livermore-Dublin Disposal Co.-Nick Perata
Parks RFTA-Kevin Shevlin
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 146
City of Dublin November 2004
Dublin Ranch West Traffic Impact Study, TJKM Associates, November,
2004
Eastern Dublin Comprehensive Stream Restoration Program, Sycamore
Associates LLC, et. al. ,June 1996
Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 69 No. 149
pp. 47211-47248.,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004
Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, proposed rule, Federal
Register VoI.69 No. 153 pp.48569-48649, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004
Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged frog, proposed rule, Federal
Register Vol. 69 No. 71 pp.19620-19642, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed listing for the
California Tiger Salamander, proposed rule, Federal Register Vol. 68 pp. 28647,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003
Sycamore Associates LLC, March 1996.
Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch,
California Department of Fish and Game, 2004
Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch,
California Department of Fish and Game, 2004
Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Departrnent of Fish and Game, Nongame-Heritage Program, Holland, Robert,
October 1986
Prime Agricultural Land Evaluation, Dublin Ranch West Annexation Area,
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, 2003
Status Report: The California Tieer Salamander, Amb~stoma californiense. Final
Report for California Department of Fish and Game, Saffer, H.B., Fisher R.N.,
and S.E. Stanley, 1992
Recovery nlTan for upland species of the San Toacluin Valley, Califonnia, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1998
.T. Harvey & Associates, Inc., 2000
Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental EIR Page 148
City of Dublin November 2004