Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Schaefer Rnch So. GPA~`/~"~ CITY CLERK ~~~,s~ File # ^©^©'®® ~ ~~ ~ ~,l 2 O - ~ ~~LIFpR~~ ~t o8- Zc7 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 4, 2008 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South: General Plan Amendment to change the existing Estate Residential and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses, and a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for an 81.3+/- acre area, a Development Agreement, and a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum to the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report. Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, with the Initial Study, Addendum, and Statement of Overriding Considerations included as Exhibits A, B, and C respectively. 2) Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South. 3) Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South. 4) Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, with the Development Agreement included as Exhibit A. 5) Email correspondence from Joanne Collins dated October 10, 2008. 6) City Council Staff Report dated August 21, 2007 without attachments. 7) City Council Meeting Minutes dated August 21, 2007. 8) Planning Commission Staff Report dated .October 14, 2008 without attachments. 9) Planning Commission draft meeting Minutes dated October 14, 2008. 10) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report. 11) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COPY TO: Property Owners PA File ~ . / ITEM NO. Page 1 of 11 G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South\City Council\ccsr 11.4.08 Schaefer South.DOC Residential, and Retail/Office land use designations to Single- Family Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South. 12) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South, without exhibit. 13) Planning Commission Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000. 14) Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: a. Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1); b. Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations (Attachment 2); c. Waive the 1St reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3); and • d. Waive the 1St reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer.Ranch Holdings LLC (Attachment 4). FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No financial impact at this time. The proposed project is consistent with the intensity of development that was anticipated for the overall Schaefer Ranch development. An economic analysis was completed as part of the original project review. This analysis shows that the proposed project will not have a negative impact on revenue for the City and that the cost of municipal services required for the project will not result in a negative impact to the City's General Fund. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The Schaefer Ranch project is described in the City of Dublin General Plan and is located within the Western Extended Planning Area. Schaefer Ranch includes approximately 500 acres located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda County (see Map 1 below). The westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard leads into the project area where Dublin Boulevard terminates. Page 2 of 11 worth The Schaefer Ranch project area was annexed to the City of Dublin in 1996 at the request of the property owner. The original approvals adopted by the City Council in 1996 included a General Plan Amendment (GPA) (Resolution 77-96), Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance 15-96 and Resolution 78-96), and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Resolution 76-96). The original approvals anticipated development of 474 single-family homes, parks, open space, commercial, and public/semi- public uses. The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 6765 in 1998 (Resolution 98-38). The VTM created 466 residential lots, as well as commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels. The City Council approved a Development Agreement for the project in 1998 (Ordinance 20-98) which expired on December 31, 2006. The Mitigation Measures contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the Conditions of Approval for the VTM required the project proponent to obtain permits for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project from the various environmental regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the area. The project proponent successfully obtained approval from the environmental agencies. However, the approval from the various agencies required the preservation of sensitive habitat for protected wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in the need to reconfigure a portion of the project which ultimately reduced the intensity of the overall development. In 2004, the Developer submitted a Lot Reconfiguration Concept to the City which reflected the requirements by the regulatory agencies. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept included 302 residential lots (18 estate lots and 284 single-family lots), commercial parcels totaling 8.99-acres, a 10.25-acre park site, and the dedication of land to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for a trail head staging area and trails. The lot reconfiguration concept reduced the previously approved 466 units to 302 units, a reduction of 164 units. On site open space areas were increased as a result of the lot reconfiguration. Due to resource agency requirements, the Developer also preserved approximately 248 acres of land to the north and west of the project site with a permanent conservation easement. The City Council reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21, 2004, and directed Staff to work with the Applicant to prepare a Final Map based on the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. The Final Map for 302 residential units was deemed complete in December of 2006 and was recorded on March 8, 2007. Page 3 of 11 Map 1: Vicinity Map A Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) were approved in 2006 to allow construction of single-family homes within Schaefer Ranch (Ordinance 11-06 and Resolution 06-17). The Schaefer Ranch project is now in construction in accordance with the above mentioned approvals. Extensive grading activity has been completed and construction of the first phase of residential neighborhoods to the north of Dublin Boulevard is currently underway. In addition, major infrastructure has been constructed, including the Dublin Boulevard extension, Schaefer Ranch Road, a water storage tank, and storm water retention basins. In addition to the ongoing construction, Discovery Builders has entered into a written agreement with The School of Imagination (SOI) to construct apreschool/day care facility on Parcel J of Schaefer Ranch. Discovery will lease the facility to SOI for a period of 15 years with options to extend the lease for an additional 30 years. Construction of the preschool/day care facility will require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR). These entitlements are not included in. the current request and will be brought forward for consideration at a later date. Discovery's agreement to construct the preschool/day care facility ispredicated on the City granting the requested entitlements. Current Request The Applicant proposes to construct 104 additional single-family homes at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and facilitate future development of the School of Imagination at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. On August 21, 2007, the Applicant submitted a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the proposed development. At that meeting, the City Council granted the Applicant's request to initiate a General Plan Amendment (GPA) Study (Attachments 6 and 7). The Applicant is currently requesting that the City Council approve the following: 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), and increase the acreage for Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses; 2. Planned Development (PD) Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan; 3. Development Agreement; and 4. CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Applicant's request also includes approval of Vesting Tentative Map 8000 to subdivide 41.5+/- acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road into 140 residential lots (a net increase of 104 lots). The overall Schaefer Ranch development would have a total of 406 single- family homes which is less than the 474 units that were originally approved for the site. The Dublin Code (Section 9.04.040.A) grants authority to the Planning Commission to approve tentative subdivision maps. Please see refer to the discussion of the Planning Commission action for further information regarding the VTM. ~ ,,, 2 ~ .~~. _. r,,~ The following is a discussion of the proposed GPA, PD Rezone and Development Agreement. ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment The proposed GPA would modify the existing Estate Residential (0.1-0.8 d/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land _. „K,~~ - R eta ilOftice ~ ~ :~ _~' ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' ~ f <~ ~ , ! ,.. ~, N ~~ Page 4 of 11 Map 2: Existing Land Use Designations - use designations at the southwest and southeast corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. Please refer to Map 2 for the location of the existing land use designations. The proposed modifications would accommodate development of additional single-family homes, construction of the School of Imagination, and better address the existing topography of the site. Please refer to Table 2 below for a summary of the proposed land use modifications. Table 2: Existing vs. Pronosed Land iJse Designations Land Use Designation Existing (Acres) Proposed (Acres) Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) 56.94 ac 0.00 ac Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac) 16.36 ac 29.70 ac Neighborhood Commercial 8.00 ac 0.00 ac Public/Semi-Public 0.00 ac 1.21 ac Open Space 0.00 ac 50.39 ac Total Acreage: 81.30 ac 81.30 ac The southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road is currently designated Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office. The Applicant is proposing to change these land use designations to Single-Family Residential. The Single-Family Residential designation would allow for the development of detached residential units. Please refer to Map 3 for the location of the proposed land use designations. ' '- Open Space ~ . ;~? .~ Public/Semi- --{.,~_.: Public (Parcels -`'~ J & K) Single-Family Residential Dublin Blvd The area located immediately north of I-580 and Map 3: Proposed Land Use Designations east of Schaefer Ranch Road is currently designated Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential and Retail/Office. However, this area has steep slopes in excess of 30% and is not appropriate for development. Therefore, the Applicant proposes to change the land use designation for this area to Open Space (Please refer to Map 3). The Open Space land use designation is intended to ensure protection of those areas. The land located at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road (Parcels J and K on Final Map 6765 and shown on Map 2 above) has a current General Plan land use designation of Retail/Office. The original approvals for Schaefer Ranch identified Parcel J as a future day care site and Parcel K was reserved as a possible future fire station site. In addition to the General Plan designations, the existing PD zoning requires public/semi-public uses on these parcels. The Applicant proposes to change the land use designation of these parcels to Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) in order to be consistent. with the intended use of these sites as defined in the PD (Please refer to Map 3). As previously discussed, the Applicant has entered into an agreement with SOI to construct apreschool/day care facility on Parcel J The project is located within the Western Extended Planning Area of the General Plan, which does not currently have a P/SP land use designation. Therefore, Staff has prepared the following P/SP designation. This description is based on the existing P/SP designation that is described in the General Plan for the Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The maximum FAR has been increased to 0.60 in order to accommodate the potential SOI facility. Page 5 of 11 Public/Semi-Public Facilities (Maximum of .60 FAR; employee density: 590 square feet per employee) A combination land use category of Public Facilities land uses and Semi-Public Facilities land uses. Public Facilities are uses other than parks owned by a public agency or non profit entity that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. Such uses include public schools, libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; utilities; and, Civic Center. Semi-Public Facilities uses are quasi public uses, such as child care centers, youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious institutions, clubhouses, community centers, community theatres, hospitals, private schools, and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar ,services and benefit the community. ASemi-Public Facility may be used for more than one such use. Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as Semi-Public Facilities shall be considered consistent with the General Plan when it is developed by a non profit entity and serves to meet affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the community. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific Semi-Public Facilities site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. The City of Dublin has aSemi-Public Facilities Policy to increase opportunities for land where Semi- Public facilities could occur throughout the City. The Semi-Public Facilities Policy applies to all General Plan Amendment applications for the Single-Family Residential land use designation involving 150 or more units. The proposed GPA for Schaefer Ranch South involves less than 150 units. Therefore, the Schaefer Ranch South project is not subject to the Semi-Public Facilities Policy and does not have a requirement to provide additional land with aSemi-Public land use designation. The proposed General Plan Amendments are included as Attachment 2 of this Staff Report. Stage 2 Planned Development Plan/Development Standards The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.32.040.B) and applies to the Schaefer Ranch South project area. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3) includes: 1) statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan; 2) statement of proposed uses; 3) Stage 2 Site Plan; 4) site area and proposed densities; 5) development regulations; 6) architectural standards; and 7) preliminary landscaping plan. The following is a discussion of key elements of the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan. Statement of Proposed Uses: The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan includes a complete list of permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses. These uses are consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PD for the remainder of the Schaefer Ranch development. Stage 2 Site Plan and Densities: The proposed site plan and densities are shown in Map 4 and Table 3 below and are, included as part of the proposed Stage 2 PD Ordinance (the Single-Family Residential land use designation density range is 0.9-6.0 du/acre). The proposed land uses and densities are consistent with the proposed GPA. ~ Page 6 of 11 Map 4: Stage 2 PD Site Plan Table Z Cite Area and Prnnnced nensities Land Use Designation Gross Acres Net Acres Number of Units Gross Densi Net Density Sin le-Famil Residential 29.70 ac 22.35 ac 140 units 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac O en S ace 50.39 ac 47.22 ac n/a n/a n/a Total: 80.09 ac 69.57 ac 140 units 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac Development Standards/Regulations: The proposed Development Standards address things such as maximum lot coverage, building heights and setbacks, usable yard requirements, and options for casitas. Please refer to Attachment 3, page 5 for the proposed Development Standards. Architectural Standards: There are five (5) architectural styles provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan. The variety of architectural styles will provide visual interest and identity for each neighborhood street. The architectural elements .will be articulated and themed to represent a variety of styles through color, texture, and massing details. The architectural styles, along with design elements, are provided on page 7 of Attachment 3. The development and architectural standards are consistent with the previously approved Schaefer Ranch project and the lot sizes are comparable to the existing lots within Schaefer Ranch. An SDR is required for construction of the units on the proposed lots. The Applicant is not proposing an SDR at this time. Therefore, the SDR will be brought forward for consideration at a future public hearing. Preliminary Landscape Plan: A Preliminary Landscape Plan has been prepared to address the project backbone landscaping. The Preliminary Landscape Plan includes conceptual neighborhood entries, streetscape and common area landscape treatment, and wall and fencing details. The Preliminary Landscape Plan has been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development Plan and is consistent in design with landscaping for the approved project. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is included in Attachment 3. Development Agreement The Development Agreement provides security to the Developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a period of fifteen years. In return, the Developer agrees to comply with the Conditions of Approval and make commitments which the City might otherwise not have the authority to compel. The Development Agreement was negotiated by the City Manger and drafted by the City Attorney with input from Staff and the Applicant to meet the needs of the City. The proposed Development Agreement includes an exception to the Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.68). The Development Agreement allows the developer to meet the obligation to provide 17 affordable units for the 140-unit subdivision by constructing "granny units" or duplexes. The Development Agreement further allows the developer to construct the 17 affordable units within the 140-unit subdivision, or to construct the affordable units on lots throughout the overall Schaefer Ranch development. Under the terms of the proposed Development Agreement, the Developer will reserve the 0.65-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road (Parcel K on Final Map 6765) as a fire station site. Under the terms of this agreement, the reservation will terminate in 2 years if not exercised by the City. This site was previously reserved as a fire station site under the original Development Agreement that was approved in 1998 and has since expired. Page 7 of 11 The Development Agreement also provides that the Developer will make a financial contribution for public art at the Dublin Historic Park. The in-lieu fee contribution will be made in accordance with the Dublin Public Art Program (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.58). The Development Agreement further obligates the Developer to make a financial contribution of $1,500,000 to the City for construction of the Dublin Historic Park. The Developer will contribute $750,000 when the Developer receives all discretionary land use entitlements from the City or upon issuance of the 1St building permit in the 140-unit subdivision, which ever comes first. The Developer will contribute the remaining $750,000 to the City prior to issuance of the 75th building permit in the 140- unit subdivision. The proposed Development Agreement is included as Exhibit A to Attachment 4. Inclusionary Zoning/Affordable Housing The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations which will be addressed at a later time by a separate Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council. This Agreement must be finalized prior to approval of a Final Map or Site Development Review, which ever occurs first. Planning Commission Action -October 14, 2008 On September 9, 2008 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to review the proposed GPA, PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Development Agreement, and CEQA Addendum in order to make a recommendation to the City Council (Please refer to the October 14, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report and draft Meeting Minutes included as Attachments 8 and 9). The Community Development Department received an email correspondence from the Board of Directors for the California Highlands Homeowners Association prior to the Planning Commission meeting on October 14, 2008. This correspondence was distributed to the Planning Commission. The letter raised concerns about the proposed project and its impact on traffic and resources, and the loss of the commercial land use within the Schaefer Ranch project. A copy of this correspondence is included as Attachment 5. No members of the public spoke at the Planning Commission meeting regarding this project. No additional correspondence has been received regarding this application as of the time this Staff Report was prepared. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed land use designations, loss of the commercial sites within Schaefer Ranch, traffic impacts and environmental impacts as a result of the project, and the terms of the Development Agreement. The Planning Commission felt that it would be appropriate to accelerate the Developer's financial contribution to the City for construction of the Dublin Historic Park as described in the draft Development Agreement. The Planning Commission recommends that the developer contribute the funds as follows: ^ Contribute $350,000 on June 1, 2009; ^ Contribute $400,000 when Developer has (a) obtained all discretionary land use entitlements from City or (b) upon issuance of the first building permit for the Project, whichever occurs first; and ^ Contribute $750,000 prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for the Project. The existing draft Development Agreement (included as Exhibit A to Attachment. 4) requires the Developer to contribute funds as follows: Page 8 of 11 ^ Contribute $750,000 when the Developer has (a) obtained all discretionary land use entitlements from the City of (b) upon issuance of the first building permit for the Project, whichever occurs first; and ^ Contribute $750,000 prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for the Project. The Development Agreement was negotiated by the City Manager and drafted by the City Attorney. The draft Development Agreement and the funding stream meet the needs of the City for construction of the Dublin Historic Park. Therefore, Staff does not recommend the modifications to the Development Agreement that were proposed by the Planning Commission. However, if the City Council feels that the proposed modification to the timing of the Developer's financial contribution for construction of the Dublin Historic Park is appropriate, the City Council should direct Staff to incorporate this modification into the draft Development Agreement. The Planning Commission also reviewed the request for Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 which subdivides 41.5+/- acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. VTM 8000 creates 140 single-family residential lots, a pedestrian paseo, common area landscape parcels, and related roadways to serve the subdivision. The approval of the VTM is contingent upon the Applicant receiving approval of the associated GPA and PD Rezone. This project site was previously subdivided into 12 estate lots, 24 single-family lots, and a 5.69-acre commercial parcel (Final Map 6765). The proposed subdivision map would eliminate the existing estate lots, single-family residential lots, and the commercial parcel in this area, resulting in a net increase of 104 residential lots as shown in Table 1 below. The overall Schaefer Ranch development would have a total of 406 single-family homes. The total number of residential units would be less than the 474 units that were originally contemplated and approved for the entire Schaefer Ranch project site in 1998. Table 1-Residential Lot Unit Count 140 Proposed Lots -12 Existing Estate Lots -24 Existing Single-Family Lots 104 Additional Lots On a motion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed GPA, PD Rezone, and CEQA Addendum. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Development Agreement with the proposed modification to the timing of the financial contribution to construct the Dublin Historic Park. The Planning Commission also approved VTM 8000 subject to City Council approval of the proposed GPA and PD Rezone (Attachments 10 through 14). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #95033070) was certified by the City Council on July 9, 1996 (Resolution 76-96). The project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included a total of 474 residential units and 10.7-acres of commercial development. Vesting Tentative Map 6765 was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission in 1998 (Resolution 98-38) creating 466 residential lots. Final Map 6765 was recorded on March 8, 2007, creating 302 residential units and commercial parcels totaling 7.99-acres. The proposed Schaefer Ranch South development would replace 12 estate lots and a 5.69-acre commercial site with 104 additional single-family lots. If approved, the Schaefer Ranch development would include a total of 406 lots (400 single-family lots and 6 estate lots), which is less than the 474 units studied in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. Page 9 of 11 The proposed project also includes future development of a preschool/day care facility on Parcel J of Final Map 6765. The EIR previously contemplated commercial development consistent with apreschool/day care facility on Parcel J. The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there could be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment beyond or different from those already addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, and no significant information has arisen for this project during the preparation of this Initial Study that would require further environmental review. Therefore, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared documenting these facts. The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in 1996 for those project impacts that were identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR as significant and unavoidable. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt a new statement of overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the proposed project. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as Exhibit C to Attachment 1. A Resolution adopting the CEQA Addendum with the Initial Study, CEQA Addendum and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included as Attachment 1, Exhibits A, B, and C respectively, of this Staff Report. CONCLUSION: The proposed project complements the existing Schaefer Ranch development by providing land uses and a street system that are compatible with the existing project approvals. The proposed PD Zoning and Stage 2 Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan land use designations as proposed to be amended. The VTM would create 140 single-family lots (a net increase of 104 lots) that are consistent with the proposed land use designations and would implement the Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan as amended, and all project approvals. An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts and a CEQA Addendum was prepared for the project. An SDR is required for construction of units on the proposed lots and for the future School of Imagination facility. The Applicant is not proposing an SDR at this time. Therefore, the SDR for these projects will be brought forward for consideration at a future public hearing. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice was also mailed to all property owners and occupants of the California Highlands development which is located immediately to the east of the Schaefer Ranch development on Dublin Boulevard. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following: a) Resolution adopting a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1); b) Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, acid Retail/Office land use Page 10 of 11 designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations (Attachment 2); c) Waive the 1St reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development .Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3); d) Waive the 1St reading and introduce the Ordinance approving a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Attachment 4). Page 11 of 11 f ~ ~~. RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE 1996 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT AND ADOPTING A RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council of the City of Dublin ("City Council") approved a Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. 77-96); an Ordinance and Resolution approving a Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance No. 15-96 and Resolution No. 78-96); and a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 95033070), which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division. and is incorporated herein by reference (Resolution No. 76-96); and WHEREAS, the project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and related features: a total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residences, 389 single family detached dwellings and 74 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; and 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. The Schaefer Ranch EIR examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures for development of the Schaefer Ranch project. It identified certain unavoidable significant impacts of the Schaefer Ranch project relating to impacts on secondary effects on native plants and wildlife, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and landscape alteration, and cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts; and WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by Resolution No. 77-96 concluded that the substantial public benefits of the project, including job creation, increased City sales and property tax revenues, increased housing opportunities and a concomitant improvement of the City Jobs/Housing Balance, supported approval of the project; and WHEREAS, in 1998, the Planning Commission approved VTM 6765 (Resolution 98-38) and created 466 residential lots, and commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels for Schaefer Ranch. The Final Map 6765 on the proposed Project site, Schaefer Ranch South, created 12 estate lots, 24 single- family lots, and a 5.69-acre commercial parcel on approximately 41.5 acres; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC ("Applicant"), requested in 2007 that the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to modify the General Plan Land Use Designations for certain portions of the project site; and Z~-~,~,,, ~', J '~ f ~1 ~~ ATTACHMENT 1 a ~~ ISM-. WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicant's request and initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South project (Resolution No. 154-07); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted applications for a modification of the Schaefer Ranch project to allow the construction of up to 140 single-family units on the Schaefer Ranch South project site. The applications include: a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000, and a Development Agreement. The GPA is for approximately 81.3 acres to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space. The PD rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan revise the zoning and development plan. The Development Agreement vests development approvals for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties. The vesting tentative subdivision map creates individual building lots on the Project site. These entitlements are collectively referred to as the project or proposed project; and WHEREAS, the overall Schaefer Ranch project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR contained 474 residential units and approximately 10.7 acres of commercial uses. Approval of the modifications to the Schaefer Ranch project under the proposed project will result in a total of 406 residential units, open space, and property designated to allow public or semi-public uses, including a children's day care center; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 are met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, City Staff prepared an Initial Study to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3 due to modifications to the approved Schaefer Ranch Project under the proposed project. The Initial Study, dated October 2008, is attached to this Resolution Exhibit A. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. The Initial Study and Addendum have been available to the public at the Planning Department at City Hall. CEQA does not require that the Initial Study and Addendum be circulated for agency or public review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Addendum and Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on October 14, 2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-28 recommending City Council approval of the CEQA Addendum; and 2 of 4 ~~~~~~. WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on November 4, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 4, 2008 was submitted to the City Council analyzing the Project and recommending. approval of the Addendum; and WHEREAS, before making a decision on the project, the City Council considered the Addendum, Initial Study and the Schaefer Ranch EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council used its independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before approving the Addendum. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings to support the determination that no further environmental review is required under CEQA for the proposed Project. These findings are based on information contained in the Addendum, Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch EIR and, the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, and all other information contained in the record before the City Council. These findings constitute a summary of the information contained in the entire record. The detailed facts to support the findings are set forth in the Addendum, Initial Study, Schaefer Ranch 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 previously approved Schaefer Ranch Project that will require major revisions to the Schaefer Ranch EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. Based on the Initial Study, all potentially significant effects of the proposed Project are the same or less than the impacts for the Schaefer Ranch Project which were previously addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed Project will not result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR All previously adopted mitigation measures for the Schaefer Ranch Project will apply to the proposed Project and project site as applicable. 2. The proposed Project also will not result in new significant impacts that were not analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Initial Study did not identify any new significant impacts of the proposed Project that were not analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIIZ. 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 Sections 21166 and 15162/3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Dublin that: 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. 3 of 4 2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and 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 does hereby adopt a CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as Exhibits A and B, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Schaefer Ranch South project. 4. The City Council has considered the information in the Schaefer Ranch Final EIR, Initial Study, and Addendum and adopted the Addendum prior to approving the land use entitlements for the proposed Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit C. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G.•IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SouthlCity CouncillCC Reso Schaefer CEQA Atidendum.doc 4 of 4 ~ ~ ~8v SCHAEFER RANCH urrrr 2 PA OS-005 INITIAL STUDY Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner October 2008 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 1 RECFn~~~ OCT 0 6 2008 f111 P'fl 1~~ IP~1 A u~n~~r4l~ G ~ 18 ~- Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2 Applicant ... ............................................................................................................... . 2 Project Loca tion and Context ................................................................................. . 2 Project Description .................................................................................................. . 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................... . 14 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................... .16 Attachment to Initial Study .................................................................................... . 29 1. Aesthetics .......................................................................................... . 30 2. Agricultural Resources .................................................................... . 33 3. Air Quality ........................................................................................ . 34 4. Biological Resources ......................................................................... . 36 5. Cultural Resources ........................................................................... . 38 6. Geology and Soils ............................................................................. . 39 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................. .42 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................ . 44 9. Land Use and Planning ................................................................... . 48 10. Mineral Resources ............................................................................ . 48 11. Noise .................................................................................................. .49 12. Population and Housing ................................................................. . 51 13. Public Services .................................................................................. . 52 14. Recreation ......................................................................................... . 56 15. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................... . 57 16. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................... . 61 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................... . 64 Initial Study Preparers ............................................................................................ . 65 Agencies an d Organizations Consulted ................................................................ . 65 References .. .............................................................................................................. . 65 7~ Aga Page Left Blank Intentionally S~l~~-- City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 (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 -- Discovery Homes 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 2 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 City limit of Dublin. More specifically, x„~ the Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of current City of Dublin City limits. 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 I-580 freeway. This Initial Study analyzes proposed land use changes that would affect the approximately 81.3-acreUnit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch located on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. For the purposes of this Initial Study, this area is identified as the "Project" or the "Project Site." The Project Site is shown on Exhibit 3. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~ ~,~y. Existing land uses adjacent to the overall Schaefer Ranch include vacant lands to the north and west, 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 and a development agreement were approved by the City of Dublin in 1998. The project analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included the following land uses and related features: • A total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residences, 389 singe family detached dwellings and 74 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; • Approximately 89 acres of the Schaefer Ranch would be 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 was subsequently approved by the City of Dublin for 466 total lots on the Schaefer Ranch. The original approval also included extensive grading and recontouring of the site and extension of utilities and services to support proposed uses. Significant portions of the Schaefer Ranch have since been constructed. To date, the Project developer has regraded 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 District, constructed a water storage tank and stormwater retention basins and completed major water and sewer lines. City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 I D ~187~ Development Concept for the proposed Project The proposed Project includes amending the Dublin General Plan, a vesting tentative subdivision map, a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement to delete the currently 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 on the south side of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of the retail commercial site. The location and design of currently approved General Plan land uses are shown on Exhibit 4. These uses would be replaced with up to 140 single-family detached lots. Exhibit 5 shows proposed General Plan land uses. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed vesting subdivision map for the proposed Project. If approved, the build-out number of dwellings on the entire Schaefer Ranch would be 406 dwellings, which is less than originally approved and fewer dwellings analyzed in the 1996 EIR, which was 474 residential lots and 5 acres (gross) of commercial uses. The proposed Project would also include construction of a children's day care center on a portion of the Project Site, located south of Dublin Boulevard and east of Schaefer Ranch Road. This facility, known as "Happy Talkers," would consist of a freestanding building of up to 14,375 square feet, with associated parking and a play area. The facility would be owned and operated by Happy Talkers, Inc. The Happy Talkers facility would consist of a two-story 14,200 square foot building. The initial phase of the facility would include 6 classrooms, 18 teachers and up to 60 children enrolled in the program on the ground floor, increasing to 12 classrooms, 36 teachers and 120 students. Access and circulation The currently approved land use configuration, with the retail designation and custom lots, includes a local road that would have served the estate lots and single-family lots. The road was planned to extend in asemi-circular, half-loop fashion on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. A small cul-de-sac was planned on the east side of the semi- circular road. The proposed road system to accommodate proposed uses would include a modified semi-circular road from Dublin Boulevard, but would also contain more cu-de-sac streets off of the main access road as well as a small modified road grid in the approximate center of the Project site. Access to the Happy Talkers site would be provided by two driveways along Dublin Boulevard. One feature included in the proposed land use configuration is a linear paseo and greenbelt extending south from Dublin Boulevard to Road 2. The purpose of this paseo is for pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Dublin Boulevard to a scenic vista. This vista provides a view of the local foothills to the south. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 I I ~~ icy Grading The Project Site has been mass graded pursuant to a grading permit issued by the City of Dublin. Additional minor grading would be needed in order to excavate for proposed roadbed and house pads. 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 140 dwellings and the day care facility, including potable and recycled water, wastewater, telecommunication, natural gas and electrical service. Requested entitlements 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. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment: Existing land use designations on the Project Site include "General Commercial" on the retail commercial area and "Estate Residential" on the residential portions of the Site. The Estate Residential land use designation allows single-family detached dwellings on large lots at a density between 0.01 to 0.08 dwellings per acre. An amendment to redesignate the Project site to "Single Family Residential" is required to implement the proposed Project. This designation allows detached single-family dwellings at a "density range between 0.9 to 6.0 dwellings per acre. A related part of the General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation of the 0.55-acre Happy Talkers site and the adjacent 0.65-acre site held for a possible future fire station to the "Public/ Semi-Public" land use designation. Slope areas on the Project Site north of the I-580 freeway and west of the residential area would also be redesignated to the "Open Space" land use designation. Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan. The existing Planned Development zoning that permits a mix of retail commercial and estate residential uses would need to be changed to permit single-family and the day care land uses. A Development Agreement that vests development approvals for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties. Issues typically addressed in development agreements include density and intensity -~~ of land use, timing and financing of infrastructure, determination of impact fees and obligations to construct public facilities, such as streets and roads. Tentative and Final subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project site. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 O _O O U T N N d ro .' x 0 p CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION N 0 2 4 6 8 f0 miles o 0 "~ o c O U m m q ., <" x 0 p aid ~ ~` ~~ j._.I '~ r o,z . V ~ F\U o;o Q ~~~g U~ ~~ ~ .1' ,~ ,~./ ` y W • ~ ` ~ W LL ~ W 2 y 2 ¢ ~ ~ Y ~ R Z O 1 Q z Q w O U o ~ ¢~w ~ I ~?z k ~=U 3 ~' w ZZ i QOM ow~ y moo? °-•°--.... a e ~1 ~(~i'1.~ Go/ ,i G~S~ GDJ~ G~ ~~ OP P I ' Hacienda Dr. Arnold Rd I Rd. / `" V i+ s ~ .o N~a` z 0 z Q Q w J d. 0 } H U l~ ~S 2-- E ' z = „ ~ o ~ s a U ~ ~ a W W ~ V Q ~ I ~ 2 ~ I N a i cs z ~~ N F- Z /_ V Z Z m~ o~ } o~ ~ W y °a }=a ~ U U v~ ? 1 ~ ~-~ ~~ r. ~.. _.,.. ~..~ z m 1 a o I I I I 1 ~ t t ~'~. i E N ~ ti6 E" ! 1 ~ ~' --rs-.,~ ~ • ~ i / ..~.~ ...~ , ~ .......J ... __.,_! 0 0 U m m m b .' K1 .~ •,,,y r' c' 0 U .~ .o U ~, ` Z ~ c - a O E- °° W m M V LL +' V ~ O W o = a ~ w N N N ~ Z = F _- I , z~ ~ O N N N U y U Q ~ Z Z C J ~ Y y ~ W o 0 LL ~ W LL ~ O ~U ;~ U cq ? + o 0 U d ~~ ~ ro .~ m K 0 v W F LL W C O o .. er~Ranch Rd. •'••. '.... ae{ Sch ~•~. .• Sso~N~~P~- '••. FEE ......... J J Q } J Q W W ~ QV ~ Z~ W~ ~Z s~ r Zw ~U J~ ~` ~O W ~, U Z y~ ~ lbllN3aIS3li ~~jW m ~u- :-~~~r.~:, ~ by~~~~ ~S c J -o O Q ~ F- QZ F. W N ~ W to W J _a ~~ az ~ W ~o w cn w z J T Q. ~ v~ J a c o ~ W N ~ W 00 N ~ ~ Z s W ~ Z W ~ C J Z N W ~~ 0 y .,~~ N ~o U Z S ~ Ci y U ~ Z Z Q ~ ~ o J fr m ~ LL ~ ~' W ~ J O U n UN z ~:. o s 0 ». U ~; N m .~ 0 Q " X 0 U J Usm a a N • ...... .•••.. .. ranch Rd.. ~'•.. ...... ~'R {e Schae .~ '• . .~ W .. •••.........., ,, ~_: „~ U Q .. , a JQ ~_ Z w ~a ww ~ LLZ W O J . J~ Z W ZW N~ N ~ a ~ J a wry m c7~w ¢ C _ y LL O J J~ ~O ~ S Z~G 1 ~ fn LL fA W Q W - °C ~ ~ ~ w J - _: ~: O ~ Z ~ J W ¢ y ~ a Z Q Q LL W a ,. to ~ ~ ,~ ,v fn W 2 h SINGLE FgM~~y R~ S~ OF W N~,q< a N , ~}^... ` ~ .~ c i c c ~^~1 0 Z Q J ~ a ~ N J Q ~ ~ ~ *+ V). Z m N K w ~ 0 Z J W ~ ~ N ~ a ~ ' a 'Z~~ N N Z 2 U Z Z . Q J ~ m ~ ~ ~ D W ~ 0 Q J >- = a Vu ? N F- Z ZZ m~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ W N Q J _ _a F- U rn Z o 0 00 ~ a. Z Q ~ F= cnw~ >>z o T ~' ~ ,~ WAN w O W > o OHm ~ ~ ~ U a ~ O SG~~ ~ ~ ~ _ `~ ~ ~ s~onn K~~ o X X pa~ g N ~ ~ d ~! ~ ~~~ OO q~OS 4~ g ~ ~ ~~ A uZ ~~ Sa= ~S3" $r ~~~ ~~ p €A m ~ t m y ~yy F~ 8 ! -~ ~~ U Q C (~ Q~ G ~ t - -- -- ~ ~ 6 3 ~~ 6 ~ q R k N pb Y~~~Q ' _ 9 s e ~~, ~p9 ~~k~ ~ €A ~ ~ ~~ ___ _ r ~f Y~ ~.. ~,. 1. Project description: Construction of up to 140 single family residential dwellings and a 14,375 square foot day care facility that would replace an approved 5.69-acre retail commercial site, 12 estate and 24 single-family residential lots on a 81.3-acre portion of the Schaefer Ranch development in West Dublin. The revised development plan also includes minor modifications to the local road system. Land use entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezoning, Site Development Review and a subdivision map. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Jeff Baker Senior Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: Southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard (extended) and Schaefer Ranch Road within the Schaefer Ranch development 5. Project sponsor: Discovery Homes ~~~ 6. General Plan designation: Existing: General Commercial and Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du./ac.) & Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwellings per acre) '~ Proposed: Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du. / ac.), Public-Semi-Public & Open Space 7. Zoning: Existing: PD-Planned Development-General Commercial & Estate Residential Proposed: PD-Planned Development-Single Family Residential, Public-Semi-Public and Open Space 8. Public agency required approvals: • Approval of Amendment to the General Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of PD-Planned Development Stage 1 & Stage 2 rezoning ~= and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for Happy Talkers (City of Dublin) .~ Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin) • Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 12 `"~ Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 i~~l~i • Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) • Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) • Development Agreement (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 13 October 2008 ~.~ JS2- Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology Soils Resources - Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population Housin - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation Circulation - Utilities Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Si nificance 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 applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 a- ~ ,$y _. 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: J~ ~~~ Date: I~~~ t! ~~ Printed Name: J~-~'f' ~ ~~` For: ~ ~~" ~~~ City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 oZda~18Z 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 aproject-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, orless-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect maybe 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 ales-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 "Less-Than-Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 a3~ iBy 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 17 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 a ~/ ~ /8 z Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and _s~ historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2, 4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2, 4) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 2) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the '~ applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 5) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2, 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 18 e Initial Study/Schaeter Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source :2, 5) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 6) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 2) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special ~~~ status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2, 4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 1, 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 19 "' Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~~1~~ y f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Source: 2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? _ (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2, 4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (2, 4) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 20 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or ~,~ disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 2) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 5) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 5) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 5) a~ ~~. f Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti anon Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 21 `~ Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 2, 4) S. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3) k , b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 1, 2,3) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of "'~ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or `~" siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration ^~ of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? "` (Source: 2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2, 3) '" g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 2, 3) a~ ~ i~ z Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 22 October 2008 ail ~~ ISy :n h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2, 3) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 4) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (Source: 1) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known • ~ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: l) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result iu: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 2) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2) ~,~ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (Source: 2) City of Dublin "`~" Initial Study/Schaeter Ranch PA 08-005 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X ~~~ X Page 23 October 2008 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 3) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 4) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 3) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste 3naPl8a, ~~ Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 24 a~, Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 31 ~1g2 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2, 3) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 5) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (2) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 1) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 25 "`° Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 <3a ~ ISv 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 2, 3) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2, 3) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 2, 3) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 2, 3) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2, 3) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or ~" endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Page 26 °~" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 33~~ ~~v b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Miti ation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Dublin General Plan 2. Schaefer Ranch Final EIR 3. Discussion with City staff or service provider 4. Site Visit 5. 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. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, this Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ,~~... the Project which were not evaluated in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 v~c~ 18z /I Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental Setting The 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 has been graded and recontoured to accommodate future land uses 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. The 81.3-acre Project Site has been graded as part of the overall mass grading of the Schaefer Ranch project and is generally flat and contains no trees, rock outcroppings or other natural features. The General Plan land use designation for the south facing slopes included in the Project Site on the north side of I-580 would be changed from "Estate Residential and Retail Commercial" to "Open Space" as part of this Project. Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of the Project Site. As a largely rural, undeveloped area, minimal light sources exist on the Project Site. 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 and use of setbacks to substantially reduce the impact of the Proiect from the I-580 freeway and the Rowell City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~ . , I ~2, 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. • Impact 5K noted a significant impact related to light and glare from commercial uses onto nearby properties, including parking lot lighting, security lighting and illuminated signs. Mitigation Measure 5.K.1 requires lighting for commercial uses to be pedestrian scaled and to minimize light and glare onto surrounding areas. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in no new or more significant impacts than identified in the 1996 EIR impacts regarding scenic vistas, since no such vistas currently exist on the Site. Approval and implementation of the Project would provide for a new scenic vista at the southerly terminus of the proposed Paseo Trail and Greenbelt. Exhibit 7 is a simulation of the Schaefer Ranch site taken from the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park, south of the Project Site. The existing (pre-Project condition) shows the Project Site in a natural open space condition with trees and vegetation as seen from some visitors to the Rodeo Park. The. row of single-family dwellings depicted on the right side of this Exhibit are part of the larger Schaefer Ranch development and are not part of the proposed Project. These structures would be visible on the left portion of the Exhibit. Although the proposed structures would represent a different condition than the currently approved project that includes a mix of dwellings, a day care facility and a commercial center, the view of the proposed Project would not be significantly noticeable from the Rodeo Park. Although the proposed Happy Talkers structure could be as tall as two stories, the impact of a similar commercial development was envisioned in the 1996 EIR (Impact 5B, Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park/I-580 View of Schaefer Basin development. Mitigation Measure 5.B.3 requires the approval of a conditional use permit for any commercial development on the Project site (Schaefer Ranch). This mitigation measure further requires detailed evaluation of visual concerns as part of the conditional use permit and, in general, commercial structures and parking area are to be screened from view. Signs shall also be controlled, although visibility of signs may be appropriate for visibility. Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic vistas than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? NI. The Project Site has been previously graded as part of the mass grading of the overall Schaefer Ranch property. The proposed Project would include replacing previously approved land uses with similar uses, but at a lower intensity. The proposed Project would include development of the proposed Happy Talkers facility on the 0.55- acre day care parcel identified in the current project as well as reserving a future fire station site. City of Dublin Page 30 °~" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 3'1 ~iSZ Exhibit 7 shows the Project site prior to development and following completion of mass grading. The Exhibit show that no substantial change to the visual character of the Site from I-580 or Rowell Ranch would occur should the Project be approved and constructed beyond that analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic resources than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The proposed Project would include replacing a commercial center and estate residences with single- family dwellings and a day care facility on approximately the same site. 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 likely have fewer aesthetic impacts than were reviewed in the 1996 EIR, since the 5.69-acre commercial development, that would have included large paved parking areas, signs and other features, is proposed to be replaced with single family dwellings and a smaller day care facility. d) Create light or glare? LS. The Project Site contains minimal light sources and construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the form of streetlights along the internal semi-circular road as well as new housing and yard lights. New light sources on the Site would also include light fixtures within the parking area of the Happy Talkers facility and lights on and within the day care building. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 5.I.1 and 5.K.1 contained in the 1996 EIR will reduce light and glare impacts related to public facilities and commercial uses by requiring that lighting associated with public facilities be reviewed by the City to ensure that appropriate shields, lenses, orientation are included with lighting fixtures. Mitigation Measure 5.K.1 requires use of pedestrian-type lighting fixtures and orientation of light fixtures away from nearby residential areas. With adherence to these measures, light and glare impacts would be less-than-significant and there would be no new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 31 °~` Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 J~ ~~ Ig2 ..~ jEX/STING] ~~~ ~ ~*~~ ~* 'rte, ` ^; . ~ _____. _ ~, 7 z~s., f ., ~ __ • ' ~ _ _ K .. - _. _... ~ ~ r i ~ 1 y}~ f 2 ,7^~ 1..r . :'s: -S ,- - _ .: ,~' .mss. ,k ~ ~ :.;. 4 n (SIMULATION] ~~ `.°, _ S . .~-~ . - ~~ - se - - ?- ... ''~~e, ~ G'. _~. __ ~ ~ SOURCE: Environmental Vision, October 2004. CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 INITIAL STUDY a ; i ~~~- 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting The Schaefer Ranch, including the Project Site, 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 and the Ranch is no longer in agricultural production. The Schaefer Ranch site is zoned Planned Development, which is not an agricultural zoning district. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR notes that the Project Site was identified as a farmland with only grazing importance, not prime farmland, due to the relatively steep topography of the Site. 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 Site. 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 would include predatory dogs from suburban dwellings harassing livestock and odor impacts from grazing and livestock keeping onto proposed dwellings. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3-12 requires disclosure of on-going grazing for future Project residents. Mitigation Measure 3-13 requires enforcement of leash laws for dogs. Mitigation Measure 3-14 requires disclosure to future homeowners of the presence of flies and odors from agricultural and livestock keeping. Mitigation Measure 3-15 requires installation of fencing around grazing areas. Project Impacts a-c) Convert prime farmland to anon-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to anon-agricultural us, including conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts ? NI. The Schaefer Ranch Project site has been graded for urban uses pursuant to current General Plan land use designation and current zoning. No agricultural uses remain on the Site and the Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement formerly on the Site no longer exists. 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 provide 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. City of Dublin Page 33 ~" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~{v o~ ~82- 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 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 requires implementation of dust control measures during site grading earth moving and excavation operations to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Such measures include but are 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 requires limited idling of construction equipment and reduction of grading activities during period of poor air quality, would reduce 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 would reduce regional emissions but not to ales-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 ales-than-significant impact. • Impact 12F, on-site fuel combustion, was identified as a potentially significant impact and adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.F.1 will reduce this to a less- than-significant impact. This mitigation would restrict on-site fireplaces or stoves to either gas burning units or units that have been EPA-approved. Conventional open hearth fireplaces are not allowed. • Impact 12G included a significant impact from miscellaneous dust sources leaving the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.G.1, that requires ~* City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA OS-005 ~ i ~ ~~~. adherence to the Bay Area Air Quality Management fugitive dust rules, would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. The proposed Project is required to adhere to these 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? NI. 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 change in the type of residential units, elimination of the 5.69-acre commercial complex, and addition of Happy Talkers day care center. As noted in the Population section of this Initial Study (see Section 10), under the proposed Project, the overall number of dwellings on the overall Schaefer Ranch site is 406 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 Happy Talkers facility would be the same as analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see analysis in the Transportation and traffic section below). 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 significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? NI. The 1996 EIR identified regional pollutant emissions as Significant and Unavoidable impacts. The proposed Project proposes residential development and day care facility 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 less under the proposed Project than the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 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 ~F 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 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 1996 project. ~„ Since the certification of the 1996 EIR, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern in this State City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Ua ~ 18z as evidence by the passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gases and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Since the 1996 EIR has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (See discussion under Section XVII Earlier Analysis above). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" and shows a new significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time the 1996 EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases was widely known prior to 1996. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was being extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analysis of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on climate change was known at the time of certification of the 1996 EIR. Under CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental analysis on the Project's impacts on this issue is required under CEQA. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? The proposed Project would result in a net decrease of 60 single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning. 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? NI. The proposed Project is a typical residential development project and does not include manufacturing or similar land uses, no objectionable odors would be created. Although the Project would include a day care facility that would be occupied by children, there are no nearby generators of odors, such as manufacturing uses. No impact would therefore result. 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, although City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 G13 ~ 182 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. The Project Site within the Schaefer Ranch has been included in the completed mass grading operation and therefore contains no trees, creeks or other 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. Preconstruction surveys for presence of burrowing owl was also mandated as part of this measure. • 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 requires 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 requires implementation of protection measures for trees that are to be preserved. Mitigation Measure 6.D.3 requires planting of replacement trees on the site at a ratio of 3 replacement trees for each 1 tree lost. Impact 6E identifies secondary impacts to native plants and wildlife, including "escape" on non-native plants into the environment and impacts to native wildlife of domestic pets. Mitigation Measures 6.E.1 requires Project landscape plans to emphasize use of native plant materials. Mitigation Measure 6.E.2 requires 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 requires 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 biological resource mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, orspecial-status species? NI. The ;~, Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of special status plant and wildlife species that could occur on the Schaefer Ranch property. Specifically, the Project Site included City of Dublin Page 37 ~~ Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~ ~ ~'~" ~; stands of coast live oaks and coast live oak/bay riparian vegetation along with annual grasslands. 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, surveys for sensitive tree species were completed, tree protection measures provided for trees to be preserved and replacement trees provided for as part of proposed Project landscaping. As a result of mass grading of the entire Schaefer Ranch property, no plant or wildlife species or habitats exist on the Site. As required by Mitigation Measure C.6.1, a preconstruction survey was completed for burrowing owl prior to commencement of grading activities. Therefore, approval and construction of the Project would not have new or more 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? NI. No creeks, streams, wetlands or waters of the US or waters of the state were identified on the Site 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 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? NI. No creeks or streams exist currently on the Site so there would be no interference with native fish migration. The proposed design of the Site also includes an unfenced paseo that extends through the Site that would allow wildlife migration. No new or more significant impacts would therefore result with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? NI. 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. f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The Project area is not located within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. 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 City of Dublin Page 38 ~° Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~ ~ ~ ~ mortar which were not located on the Project Site. These finds were not conclusively determined to be of prehistoric origins. The Project Site is vacant and contains 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 would be reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1 that requires 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 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? NI. No structures exist on the Site so there would be no impact with regard to historic resources. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological, paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Project Site has 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, 5 / 21 / 08) 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 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. . City of Dublin Page 39 ~~~ Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~c ~ ~a2 As noted in the Project Description portion of this Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch has been substantially graded and landslide areas remediated. The Schaefer Ranch does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone). 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: • 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 requires City approval of a grading plan consistent with City standards and that also would reduce visual impacts and satisfy geotechnical requirements. Mitigation Measure 9.A.2 requires 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 would reduce landslide and slope stability impacts to a less-than significant level. These measures require remediaton 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 would reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level by requiring adherence to asite-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. 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 require geotechnical investigations for City of Dublin Page 40 "'"° Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA OS-005 - 4~~isZ 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 would reduce seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level. These measures include 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 require incorporation - of earthquake resistant design for all structures and mapping of inactive faults in the Project area and incorporation of remedial measures for inactive faults on Project structures. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? NI. 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, site-specific 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 Site. 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 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? NI. 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? NI. The 1996 EIR noted Impact 9E, expansive and corrosive soils, within the Schaefer Ranch area. 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 would be less-than-significant. Similarly, Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.B.1 through 8 will reduce impacts related to landslide and slope stability to ales-than-significant level. With adherence to these and other soil and geology impacts contained in the 1996 EIR, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. 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. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted that several areas of the Schaefer Ranch property was 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. 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 are included in the EIR to reduce this impacts to ales-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 Ranch during construction. These measures continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. 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 on the Project Site, these would not be used, stored or transported in any significant quantities. `~` 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? NI. The Project Site has been graded and filled with approximately '~"' 100 feet of fill material. 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 of the Project site 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 existing dwellings exist on the Site that could release hazardous materials into the atmosphere. No new or more significant ~~ impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 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? NI. 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.), although a private day care facility would be located on the Project Site. 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 will ensure that there would be no impact with regard to this topic. There is therefore no new or more significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The Project Site is not listed by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of May 22, 2008. There is therefore no new or more 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? NI. The Project Site is not located near any public airport or private airstrip. No impacts would therefore occur. g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan? NI. 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 impact would therefore result. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The Project area is located in a substantially urbanizing area, although wildlands do exist near the Project site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.2 through 7.3.5 contained in the 1996 EIR will apply to the Project to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. These measures require installation of a irrigated border of fire-resistant vegetation with a minimum width of 30 feet, provision of diced 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 following the requested land use entitlements, no new or more significant impacts with regard to wildland fire have been identified than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~U~ ~$z 8. 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 Site, is located within the jurisdictions of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. The eastern portion of the Ranch is located within Zone 2. Existing drainage facilities As part of recent construction on the overall Schaefer Ranch site, the Project developer has received approval from the City of Dublin, Zone 7 and Alameda County for a Master Drainage Plan for the Ranch (pers. comm. Doug Chen, 5/22/08). Pursuant to the approved Master Drainage Plan, a number of drainage facilities have been constructed on the Ranch, including but not limited to underground drainage lines, swales and water quality ponds. Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Federal regulations issued in November 1990 expanded the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes, and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre of land area. The City of Dublin is a co-permittee of the Alameda County Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments in Alameda County to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. In 1994, the RWQCB issued a set of recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. These recommendations include policies that define watershed protection goals, set forth minimum non-point source pollutant control requirements for site planning, construction and post-construction activities, and establish criteria for ongoing reporting of water quality construction activities. Watershed protection goals are based on policies identified in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control; and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. City of Dublin Page 44 "~"' Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Groundwater recharge The Project Site is not located near any major creek and has been filled with approximately 100 feet of earth material that precludes groundwater recharge. The Project Site is not designated for groundwater recharge purposes under 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 (F. Navarro, 5/23/08), the topographic elevation of the proposed Project Site is 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, 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 would reduce 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 require 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 NPDES/SWPPP regulations. Project Impacts A a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would add impervious surfaces to the Project site 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 has completed and submitted the water quality report required by this measure (Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division, City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 5a~,&y 6/2/08). The Project applicant will be required to continue adherence to this Mitigation Measure for final grading operations on the Project Site. As part of the approval of the grading plan and Master Drainage Plan, the City of Dublin required the Project developer to meet current surface water quality standards included in the Alameda County Clean Water Program (pers. comm. Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/23/08). Any subsequent grading activities will also be required to adhere to 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures and surface water quality standards enforced by the City of Dublin. Therefore, no new or more 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? NI. 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 Project Site is not designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin General Plan. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? NI. Although new impervious surfaces would be added to the Project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, 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, ,this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. The 41.5-acre 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 on the Project Site. Subsequent grading activities on the Site will be required to conform to the approved Master Drainage Plan and all other mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR to ensure that no significant alterations to drainage patterns, stream courses or that significant amounts of siltation or erosion would occur. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the protect site? NI. 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 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 City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 53 ~ ~Sz 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 potential. Therefore, no new or more 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? NI. 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 requires the Project developer to plan for an 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 the proposed Project. The Project is also been required by the City of Dublin to incorporate Best Management Practices to minimize runoff of polluted drainage (pers. comm., Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/23/08). Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to drainage systems or polluted runoff not analyzed in the 1996 EIR would occur. f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. 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? NI. The Project site lies 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., Frank Navarro, 5/23/08). h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above. No impacts with regard to hazards from dam failure were identified in the 1996 EIR. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project area is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9B.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 Site and recommended steps to reduce this potential impact to a less-than- significantlevel. These steps were incorporated into the mass grading plan for the overall Schaefer Ranch site as required by the Mitigation Measure and No new or more significant impacts than was analyzed in the previous EIR are therefore anticipated with regard to landslides and mudflows. City of Dublin Page 47 `" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 5~{ ~~8y 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental Setting The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no structures. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project Site is vacant and is part of the larger Schaefer Ranch planned community, currently under construction. There are no dwellings or residents on the Site. No impact would therefore occur should the Project be approved. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? LS. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of "General Commercial" on the retail commercial area and "Estate Residential" on the residential portions of the Site. Neither of these designations allow the type and density of land use envisioned as part of the Project. The applicants have requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate the Project site to a combination of "Single Family Residential" "Open Space" and "Public-Semi-Public" land use designations. This Amendment is required to implement the proposed Project. This designation allows detached single-family dwellings at a density range between 0.9 to 6.0 dwellings per acre. The "Public-Semi-Public" land use classification would be applied to the Happy Talkers site and reserved for a future fire station site. This designation allows for a day care centers. If this application is approved, 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 aless-than-significant impact with regard to this topic. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. 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 impacts with regard to this Project. 10. Mineral Resources ~' Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR identifies the presence of no significant mineral deposits in the Schaefer Ranch area. ,~~, City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 55x~~y Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The 1996 EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the Project area, so no impacts would occur. 11. 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. Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally Acce table Conditionally Acce table Normally Unacce table Clearly Unacce table Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+ Lod in Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Schools, churches, nursin homes 60-70 70-80 80+ -- Neighborhood arks 60 or less 60-65 65-70 70+ Office/Retail 70 or less 70-75 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. `~" 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. ;~ City of Dublin Page 49 `" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~~, f~ • Impact 11A identified construction noise generated by grading of the Schaefer Ranch site as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 requires 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 (the Schaefer Basin, which is the location of the current proposed Project) would be impacted by noise from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, by on-site vehicle noise. To mitigate this impact to aless-than-significant level, Mitigation Measure 11.B.1 requires 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. 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? NI. Development of proposed Project could expose future residents and visitors on the Site to significant noise levels from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, Dublin Boulevard. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 11.B.1, the Project applicant has submitted a detailed noise study prepared by Charles Salter Associates in August 2005. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study document. This report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The 2005 report concludes that, with the regarding of the Project Site, all future residential lots adjacent to the I-580 Freeway would have exterior noise exposure levels of 60 decibels on the CNEL noise scale, consistent with the City's Noise Element. The Happy Talkers day care facility also would have exterior noise exposure levels of 60 decibels on the CNEL noise scale, consistent with the City's Noise Element for a day care/ school use Based on adherence to Mitigation Measure 11.B.1, residents and visitors would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of City standard and no new or more significant impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. ~~ b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI. The proposed Project would include normal construction methods and techniques typical of asingle-family subdivision. Similarly, the subdivision would not include operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts would result with regard to vibration than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~ ~i~~ c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? NI. The 1996 EIR noted that on-site traffic noise would be a minor component of noise on the Site (Impact 11A.). Increases in off-site noise as a result of traffic generated on the Schaefer Ranch was identified as aless-than-significant level (see Impact 11E). The proposed Project, if approved, would reduce the number of vehicle trips and associated vehicle noise on the Site (see Section 15 of this Initial Study, Transportation) Therefore no new or more 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? NI. 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 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? NI. 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. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments organization responsible for preparing and tracking population and demographic changes within the Bay Area region anticipates that the Bay Area will continue to grow at a steady rate. Factors contributing to this growth include a favorable climate, recreational activities, top universities and career opportunities. Over the next 20 years, the population is expected to increase to more than 8 million persons, a 16% increase over the current (2007) population. Population increases are expected to be primarily due to increases in births and longer life expectancies rather than significant in-migration. Land uses shown in the existing City of Dublin General Plan have been included in ABAG population and growth projections for the City and region. 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? NI. Approval of the proposed Project would increase the permanent population on City of Dublin Page 51 `'~' Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~ ~~ ~~~~ i ~-. this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch Project. However, the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the Project be approved (406 dwellings) would be fewer 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 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? NI. The Project Site is vacant and no housing units or people would be displaced should the Project be approved. 13. Public Services Environmental Setting The following provide essential services to the community: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station No 16, located at 7494 Donohue Drive in western Dublin. • 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. 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 aless-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 City of Dublin Page 52 ~` Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 subdivision maps in the Schaefer Ranch and planting of fire resistant vegetation surrounding dwellings on the Schaefer Ranch. M 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 to reduce this impact to ales-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 requires dedication of a fire station in West Dublin that would contain emergency medical response equipment. Mitigation Measure 7.3.8 requires an r educational program to residents focusing on emergency medical response times. F Impact 7.3E notes a significant impact with regard to wildland-structural fires, that would be reduced to ales-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- 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 ales-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- significantlevel 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 City of Dublin Page 53 °"~` Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~O~-~8Z Mitigation Measure 7.3.1, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 reduces this impact to a less-than- significantlevel. 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. • 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 .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 reduced this impact to ales-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 ales-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, City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~I ~18z 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. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. Project Impacts ~~ a) Fire protection? NI. The applicant is required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 ,~ through 7.3.8 contained in the 1996 EIR that reduces impacts to the Alameda County Fire Department to ales-than-significant level. These measures have been °~ satisfied to the City of Dublin (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division 6/ 12/ 08). The proposed Project would result in fewer dwellings and a resident population than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The current Project would also replace a 5.6-acre retail commercial site with a small day care facility. Therefore, no new or more ~a significant impacts with regard to fire protection than analyzed in the 1996 EIR have been identified. b) Police protection? NI. Similar to fire protection, the Project applicant is required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.4.1 through 7.4.3 contained in the 1996 EIR to reduce police impacts to ales-than-significant level. To meet these measures, the proposed Development Agreement will include a strategy to fund additional police resources and the proposed Project has been reviewed by the Dublin Police Services Department to ensure that safety and security features have been included in the Project design (pers. comm., Val Guzman Dublin Police Services, 5/29/08). The proposed Project would also result in fewer dwellings and a lower resident population than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The 5.6-acre commercial area on the Project site would be replaced by a smaller day care facility. The applicant also received written confirmation from East Bay Regional Park District staff that the District Board accepted responsibility for regional trails and •~° other facilities within the Schaefer Ranch site (memo from Linda Chavez, EBRPD, dated December 13, 2006). Therefore, no now or more significant impacts with regard to police service than analyzed in the 1996 EIR have been identified. c) Schools? NI. There would be no impacts with regard to school impacts with adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.10A contained in the 1996 EIR. Payment of statutorily mandated impact fees at the time of issuance of building permits will comply with this mitigation requirement. The school district boundary between the Castro Valley Unified School District and Dublin Unified School District is currently adjusted to include the entire Schaefer Ranch site within the Dublin Unified district. The boundary adjustment process is anticipated to be completed at the end of June, 2008. Commencing with the beginning of the school year in the fall of 2008, public school students residing in the Schaefer Ranch will attend Dublin Elementary School. Wells Middle School and Dublin High School (pers. comm., Kim McNeeley, Dublin Unified School District, 5/27/08). There, no new or City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~°' ~Igti more significant impacts would occur with regard to school impacts than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 contained in the 1996 EIR, that requires a Development Agreement for the Project ensure that satisfactory financial resources are devoted to other governmental services, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to other governmental services. The pending Development Agreement of the Project includes such analysis (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division, 6/12/08). e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 "e" and "f," below. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting The Project Site is 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 the Project Site 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 Parks District. A staging area for the regional trail is currently under construction. 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. • Impact 7.6C notes a potentially significant impact with regard to internal open space, including on-going maintenance, fire suppression, weed abatement, ue 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 City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~3 0(? ~z. ~~ 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 ales-than-significant level. These measures require the City of Dublin to verify that regional trail facilities and linkages are consistent with EBRPD standards. t These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project. ~, Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. 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 (406 dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the 1996 EIR x (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). .« Also, two local public parks are proposed to be constructed within the larger Schaefer Ranch community that may be used by residents of the proposed Project. ~` The proposed Happy Talkers component of the Project would also include a private outdoor play area for use by the facility's students. The proposed regional trail would extend along the easterly boundary of the proposed Project for access "' by future Project residents. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 by the Project applicant will reduce impacts related to increased use of parks to a less-than-significant level. The Project developer has dedicated local parkland to the City in compliance with Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 - 7.6.4 (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division, 6/ 12/ 08). Therefore, no new or more 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? NI. See item "a," above. ;,,~ 15. 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 City of Dublin Page 57 ~" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~~ i~ 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 (pers. comm., Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/28/08). 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 aless-than-significant level and requires developments within the Schaefer Ranch to contribute a fair share contribution to a traffic signal at this intersection and associated widening of this intersection. • Impact 4B noted a significant impact with regard to future traffic at the San x. 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 _n 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. • 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 aless-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. • Impact 4L identified a significant impact with regard transit access to the Schaefer Ranch site, specifically that no pubic transit stops exist near the Ranch. City of Dublin Page 58 ' Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 -~ l5~~v N Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 requires the City of Dublin to consult with public transit districts o make necessary transit arrangements for future transit '" provisions. The City shall require apark-and-ride lot, if appropriate, as well as a transit stop, bus turning radii and other facilities to support transit. • ,Impact 40 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- • Impact 4R identified a significant impact with the provision of pedestrian and bicycle access within the Schaefer Ranch development and with providing _, regional linkages to existing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Mitigation Measure 4.R.1 through 4.R.3 reduced this impact to aless-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. Project Impacts a,b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to existing traffic load and ,,~ ' street capacity or exceed, either, individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads? NI. The proposed Project would contribute fewer peak hour vehicle trips to local and regional roads than the currently approved land use configuration on the Project Site. This is shown on Table 2, K below. Table 2. Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Quantity A.M. Peak Hour Tri s P.M. Peak Hour Tri s 1996 EIR Anal zed Pro'ect Retail 5.35 ac. 128 353 Office 5.35 ac. 112 104 Sin le Famil 400 dwellin s 296 404 Townhome 74 dwellin s 33 41 Total Tri s -- 569 902 Pro osed Pro'ect Sin le Famil 406 300 410 Da Care 14,200 sf 182 187 Total Tri s 482 597 Net Chan a -87 -305 Note: Trip rates based on Table 4-5 contained in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR, updated by City of .Dublin staff Based on the calculations contained in Table 2, fewer a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips would result should the proposed Project be approved than was analyzed in the City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~6 ~p~~v ~C 1996 EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less 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 or will be required to install a traffic signal system at the Dublin ° Boulevard/Schaefer Ranch Road intersection as well as to pay 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. 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 Mitigation Measures (per Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 6/12/08). . Thus, no new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result. c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residential development and related entitlements. The Site is also not located near any public or private airport or airstrip. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? NI. Approval of the proposed Project and future development would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The Dublin Municipal Code contains design standards intended to assure that access to and from a development area, and circulation within the area, will be safe and efficient. Since Project facilities will be required to be constructed to these design standards, no significant impacts with regard to creating design hazards or unsafe conditions are anticipated. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. The proposed Project includes two local roadway connections with Dublin Boulevard, similar to the currently approved vesting tentative map. Adequate emergency access to and from the Project Site would be provided per Dublin Fire Department standards and as required by Mitigation Measure 7.3.6. No new or more significant impacts with regard to emergency access would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. No impacts to parking requirements are anticipated since the project will be required to comply with City of Dublin parking requirements. The ~' adequacy of on-site parking facilities will be ensured through the SDR review process by nor the City of Dublin. No new or more significant impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. g) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project City of Dublin Page 60 '~' Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~%~ ~Sy includes features that would promote pedestrian and bicycle use as required by Mitigation Measures 4.R.1- 4.R.3, including allowing bicycle traffic along Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Project and including a pedestrian paseo in the center of the Project. No new or more significant impacts regarding alternative transportation modes would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The Project Site is currently served by the following service providers: • 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 ales-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. City of Dublin Page 61 `"""" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ,.~ ~8~~gy • Impact 7.2C noted a significant impact with regard to disposal of treated wastewater that will be reduced to aless-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4. • Impact 7.2D identified a significant impact with regard to wastewater m 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 ~' Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. 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 significant impacts would result. The currently proposed Project would be less than the total number of dwellings and the commercial development originally planned and approved for this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch development. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NI. Table 3, below, compares estimates water use for the proposed Project with the amount of water anticipated for the Schaefer Ranch site and included in DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan 2005 update The table shows the types and intensity of land uses included in the proposed land use plan would generate an estimated 10,500 fewer gallons of water per day compared with currently approved uses. The quantity of water use for approved land uses for the Schaefer Ranch has been confirmed by DSRSD staff (Rhodora Biagton, DSRSD engineer, 6/2/08) City of Dublin Page 62 ~" Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 ~r `~ ~.~. ~. ~~ Table 3. Estimated Schaefer Ranch Potable Water Demand in Gallons Per Day (GPD) Land Use Development Quantity Generation Factor Est. Water Demand (gallons/day) Pro osed develo ment Low Density Residential 406 du 393 gpd 159,558 Ha Talkers 14,200 sf 0.05 sf d 710 Subtotal 160,268 A roved water use Single family dwellin s) 433 du 393 170,169 Commercial 0.6 ac' 6,817 sf 0.1 sf 681 Subtotal 170,850 Total -- -10,582 ""' Notes: ,~„ 1) Approved water use based on a-mail from Rhodora Biagton to Jeff Baker, 6/2/08 2) Commercial development based on Table 6-4 of DSRSD 2005 Urban Water Management Plan 3) Generation factor from 2005 Urban Water Management Plan The issue of wastewater treatment facilities is addressed in subsection "a." above. _~. Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to water and wastewater provision than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. ~w .~ c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. 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 significant impacts related to storm drainage facilities beyond those set forth in the 1996 have been identified. ,,,~ d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. See item "b," above. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? NI. See response to "a," above. `~` f) Solid waste disposal? NI. 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 aless-than-significant level. This mitigation requires the solid waste provider to issue a will-serve letter prior to issuance of a tentative subdivision w 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 ,x this Project (per. comm., Karen Brighi, Amador Valley Industries, 7/ 21 / 08). With City of Dublin Page 63 "~ Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 x ~~ °P )~a. ~~ adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1, no new or more 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? NI. ~' 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. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective 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 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 significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 City of Dublin Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Senior Planner Frank Navarro, Senior Civil Engineer Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney Val Guzman, Police Services Department Dublin Unified School District Kim McNeeley, Facilities Manager Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, senior engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Doug Chen, Discovery Builders California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, May 2008 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: References °11 ~ 18 v Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06 Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment, WPM Planning Team, 1996 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update .~ ~r City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 65 October 2008 7a ~igy CEQA ADDENDUM FOR SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 PA 08-005 October 2, 2008 On July 2, 1996?, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 76-96, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment ("Schaefer Ranch EIR, SCH #95033070). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes. The Schaefer Ranch EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch with a mixture of residential, commercial, office, parks, public and semi-public and open space land uses. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Unit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch, as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals The City of Dublin approved development of portions of the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch in 1996. The approvals included a General Plan Amendment, prezoning, annexation to the City, Zone 7 and DSRSD, detachment from the Hayward Area Recreation and Parla District, vesting tentative subdivision maps and a development agreement. Schaefer Ranch is located in the western portion of the City of Dublin and adjacent to the western City limit of Dublin. More specifically, the Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of current Dublin City limits. The Unit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch is located south of Dublin Boulevard, north of the I-580 Freeway, east of current City limits and just east of Schaefer Ranch Road. The current application includes an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map and a Development Agreement. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Schaefer Ranch EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for athen-largely undeveloped area west the City of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigation measures were adopted upon approval of the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of the overall EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 1 Schaefer Ranch Unit 2 Addendum EIR-City of Dublin October 2008 ~~ ~Sz Page 2 /~" Schaefer Ranch project that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Schaefer Ranch EIR is incorporated herein by reference. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined that an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Schaefer Ranch EIR to determine if any further environmental review is required for the proposed General Plan, Planned Development Rezone and associated applications for Unit 2 of Schaefer Ranch. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated October 2008, and incorporated herein by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or negative declaration is required for this Project. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration is required for this Project. This is based on the following analysis: a) Are there substantial changes to the Project ini~olr~ng neu~ or more sei~ere signifrcrint impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project from that analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. No increase in the number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch are proposed as part of the Project. The Project on the Unit 2 portion of the Schaefer Ranch would include a change in the type and density of uses and would not be a substantial change. The Project changes would not result in any new or snore severe significant impacts than those analyzed in the 1996 EIR.No additional or different mitigation measures are required from those included in the 1996 EIR. This General Plan Amendment would replace the "Retail/Office" and "Estate Residential" land use designations. A majority of the Unit 2 Project Site would then be changed to the "Single Family Residential" land use designation. A related part of the General Plan Amendment would change the "Retail/Office" land use designation of the 0.55-acre Happy Talkers site and the adjacent 0.65-acre site held for a possible future fire station to the "Public/Semi-Public" land use designation. Slope areas on the Project Site north of the I-50 freeway and west of the residential area would also be redesignated to the "Open Space" land use designation. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. This is documented in the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated October 2008. Schaefer Ranch Unit 2 Addendum EIR-City of Dublin October 2008 ~ ~ 1 Sz-- Page 3~ c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the applicant declines to adopt them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. As documented in the attached Initial Study, no new or different mitigation measures are required. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the Project. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study dated October 2008. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed redesignation of land uses as discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines that the Schaefer Ranch EIR, adequately addresses the potential en~~il-onmcntal impacts of the lroposed Project. As provided in Section 15164 of the Guidelines, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but shall be considered with the prior environmental documents before making a decision on this project. The Initial Study, Schaefer Ranch EIR and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. ~~ (~ ~~. Exhibit C: 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 77-96, July 9, 1996). The City Council carefully considered each impact in its decision to approve urban development in the Schaefer Rarich project area through the various land use approvals for the project. The City has undertaken a study to analyze various modifications to the original project, including changes to various land use entitlements to modify the approved 5.69- acre retail commercial site as well as 12 estate and 24 single-family residential lots on a 81.3-acre portion of the Schaefer Ranch project area, known as Schaefer Ranch South. In place of the approved commercial site, 12 estate and 24 single-family residential lots on Schaefer Ranch South, the project would consist of construction of up to 140 single- family detached lots, open space and public/semi-public uses (including, a children's day care center). The proposed modifications to the land use entitlements and approvals for the project include the following. A General Plan Amendment to redesignate portions of the Project site to "Single Family Residential," "Public/Semi-Public" and "Open Space." A Stage 2 Planned Development Rezoning and Development Plan to permit single-family and the day care land uses. A Development Agreement that vests development approvals for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties. A vesting tentative subdivision map to create individual building lots on the Project site. The overall Schaefer Ranch Project approved in 1996 consisted of 474 residential units, approximately 10.7 acres of commercial space; public and semi- public designated areas, and approximately 162 acres of parks and recreation areas. With the proposed modifications to Schaefer Ranch South, the overall Schaefer Ranch Project will consist of: 406 residential units, 5.5 acres designated Public/Semi-Public uses (which allow a children's day care center), and 397.5 acres of parks and recreation (including open space). The City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations with the original land use approvals for development of the Schaefer Ranch project. (Resolution 77-96.) These original project approvals included future development of the areas impacted by the project. Pursuant to a 2002 court decision, the City Council must adopt a new overriding considerations for the previously identified unavoidable impacts that apply to the modified project.l 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 prior approvals, many of which have already been implemented. These mitigations will apply to the development of the Schaefer Ranch South project as applicable. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes ~ "...public officials must still go on record and explain specifically why they are approving the later project despite its significant unavoidable impacts." (emphasis in original) Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App.4th 98. Exhibit C fio ATTACHMENT 1 7 6 c~ k?a- that the implementation of the overall Schaefer Ranch project, including the modified Schaefer Ranch South project, carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the prior 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, legal, social, technological, environmental, land use, or other benefits and considerations, as set forth below, that outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts on the environment and support approval of the project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts from the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The following unavoidable significant environmental impacts were identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and apply to the proposed project as part of the overall Schaefer Ranch project. Vegetation and Wildlife Impact 6E: Secondary Effects on Native Plants and Wildlife. The introduction of exotic plant species, pets, and other effects of human occupancy would have adverse effects on the surrounding natural plant and wildlife habitat. Air Quality Impact 12D: Regional Pollutant Emissions. Vehicles associated with the project would contribute to regional ozone emissions. Given the existing ozone problems in the area, and regulatory requirements to reduce ozone emissions, this would be a significant, unavoidable adverse impact. Impact 18.4B: Cumulative Loss of Open Space (Private Rangeland) and Landscape Alteration. Continuing urbanization in the region is converting private rangeland to other uses. The project would contribute to less open space in the area. Cumulative Impact 18.4D: Cumulative Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts. There is a,cumulative loss of existing natural vegetation and wildlife habitat to urban development in the region which the project would contribute to. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the Schaefer Ranch project approvals and development against the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, as set forth in Resolution 77-96 and determined that the unavoidable impacts were outweighed by the benefits of Schaefer Ranch project, of which the proposed project is a part. Now, in 2008, the City has reviewed the requested entitlements and modification to the approved development for the Schaefer Ranch South portion of the Schaefer Ranch project. The City prepared a CEQA Addendum for these changes based on an Initial Study documenting that the project would not require the preparation of a supplemental EIR or other supplemental document, pursuant to CEQA section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163. In adopting the Addendum, the City Council determines that the Schaefer Ranch EIR adequately identifies and analyzes the potential significant effects of the project. The City Council, acting pursuant to CEQA 2 ~7 0182 Guidelines section 15093, hereby determines that the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR that are applicable to the project are outweighed by certain benefits resulting from the development and the need for and desire of the City to implement its planning goals and policies. The City has carefully and systematically planned for the incremental development of the Schaefer Ranch property. The City Council determines that approval of the project would implement the City's overall long- term planning for the Schaefer Ranch project. More particularly, and consistent with the prior Statement of Overriding Concerns, the City will derive certain economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, land use, or other benefits from implementation of the project. These benefits include, but are not limited to: the creation of a substantial number of construction jobs; increases in sales tax revenues for the City due to the projected higher level of income of Project residents; substantial increases in property tax revenues; an increase in housing opportunities in the City (including affordable housing); designation of 385 acres for open space (including dedicated trails); a 12.5 acre neighborhood park; an improvement in the City Jobs/Housing Balance; the inclusion of socially beneficial land uses in the area of the project zoned Public/Semi-Public, including a children's day care center; a financial contribution of $1,500,000 to the City for the Dublin Historic Park; monetary contribution to City Public Arts Program; reservation of Parcel K for dedication as a fire station site for two years; and payment of various City fees, including development impact fees to be used for needed City improvements and services. 3