HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 10-11 CEQA Adnd to EDEIR & MND Sorrento East RESOLUTION NO. 10 -11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN
DUBLIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND 2000. DUBLIN RANCH AREA F
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT
PA 08-002
WHEREAS, the Applicant .proposes to develop a 581 unit residential project on an
approximately 68 acre site. The project consists of 513 detached units and 68 attached units, a
private recreational facility, a 5.6 acre Neighborhood Park site and other related improvements.
The related applications include amendments to previous PD-Planned Development Stage 1
and Stage 2 Development Plan,. Site Development Review, Vesting Tentative Map and
Development Agreement approvals. The proposed project reduces the previously approved
development from 694 units to 581 units and changes the mix of units from primarily attached to
primarily detached. The above activities and applications are further described in applications
on file with. the City and are collectively referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is located between Gleason Drive and. Central Parkway and
between Grafton Street and Lockhart Street; and
WHEREAS, the Project is in the General Plan Eastern Extended Planning Area and the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, for which the. City Council certified a Program Environmentai
Impact Report by Resolution 51-93 ("Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR", SCH 91103064) on May
10, 1993 (incorporated herein by reference). The Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant
impacts from development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which could not be mitigated to
less than significant. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan, the City Council adopted mitigations, a mitigation monitoring program and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution 53-93, incorporated herein by reference);
and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2000, the City Council approved a Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("2000 MND") for approximately 147 acres known as Dublin Ranch Area F in
Eastern Dublin (Resolution No. 34-00 incorporated herein by reference). The City Council
approved related General and Specific Plan amendments for Area F on March 7, 2000
(Resolution No. 35-00 incorporated herein by reference), and adopted PD-Planned
Development zoning and related Development Plans on March 21, 2000 (Ordinance No. 6-00,
incorporated herein by reference). The approvals anticipated low and medium density
residential development in Area F with related parks and schools; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 47-04, a General/Specific
Plan amendment to reallocate land uses in portions of Dublin Ranch Areas F, B and E. The
Medium Density Residential land use designation for most of the Project site remained
unchanged; approximately 4 acres of public/semi-public land on the Project site was
redesignated to Medium Density Residential. The Council also approved Ordinance 12-04
adopting a revised PD-Stage 1 Development Plan for an approximately 285.4 acre planning
area and a Stage 2 Development Plan for 88.5 acres north of the current Project site. The
Page 1 of 4
Council determined that any potentially significant impacts from the reallocation of uses was
adequately addressed in the prior EDEIR and .2000 MND and that no further environmental
review was required. The Council adopted a CEQA Addendum documenting this determination
(Resolution 43-04, March 16, 2004). The above referenced resolutions and ordinance are
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council approved Ordinance 24-05 for the 124.8 acre
Sorrento East and West portion of Area F for. a 1,111 unit residential development on either
side of Grafton Street. The ordinance revised the previously approved PD-Stage 1
Development Plan by increasing the maximum number of potential residences in Area F from
1,290 to 1,351 and approved a PD-Stage 2 Development Plan for the Sorrento East and West
development; companion Site Development Review as well as a Master Vesting Tentative Map
and Vesting Tentative Maps for individual neighborhoods were also approved. The east and
west portions of the residential development would be linked by a pedestrian and open space
corridor and a pedestrian bridge across Grafton Street. The westerly portion of the
development is nearing completion; the easterly portion of the approved development is the
current Project site. The City Council approved a Development Agreement for the Sorrento
East portion of the development on October 2, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if additional review of the
proposed Project modifications and development was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15162. Based on .the Initial Study, the City prepared an Addendum dated March 9,
2010 describing the modifications and development and finding that the impacts of the
proposed Project have been adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND.
The Addendum and related Initial .Study are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein
by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified significant unavoidable impacts from
development of the Eastern Dublin area, some of which would apply to the Project; therefore,
approval of the Project must be supported by a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission staff report dated March 9, 2010 and incorporated
herein by reference analyzed the Project and recommended adoption of the CEQA Addendum
and approval of the applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a property noticed public hearing on the
Project on March 9, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Addendum as well as the Eastern
Dublin EIR and 2000 MND before taking action on the Project applications. The Planning
Commission further considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking any
action; and
WHEREAS, all of the above resolutions and ordinances incorporated by reference are
available for public review during normal business hours at the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are. true and correct
and made a part of this resolution.
2 of 4
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council 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 and related Initial Study, the. Eastern Dublin EIR, the
2000 MND, the Planning Commission staff report, and all other information contained in the
record before the Planning Commission. 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 and related Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, 2000 MND 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 Eastern Dublin and Area F projects that will require major revisions to the EIR or MND
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 Eastern Dublin and Area F
projects which were previously addressed in the EIR and MND. The proposed Project will not
result in substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the prior EIR and
MND. AIL previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed .Project and
project site as applicable.
2. The Initial Study did not identify any new. significant impacts of the proposed Project
that were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND..
3. The City is not aware of any new information of substantial importance or substantial
changes in circumstances that would result in new or substantially more severe impacts or meet
any other standards in CEQA Section 21166 and related CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162/3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the. Planning Commission recommends the following
to the City Council
1. No further environmental review under CEQA is required for the proposed Project
because there is no substantial evidence in the record as a whole that any of the standards
under Sections 21166 or 15162/3 are met.
2. The City has properly prepared an Addendum and related Initial Study under
CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to explain its decision not to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental EIR or conduct further environmental review for the proposed Project.
3. The City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study, attached as
Exhibit A, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 for the Regent/Sorrento
East Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council adopt any further required CEQA findings.
3 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9t" day of March, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: King, Brown, Swalwell, Wehrenberg, Schaub
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Panning Com issio Chair
ATTEST:
Planni g Hager
1380080
4 of 4
CEQA ADDENDUM FOR THE SORRENTO EAST PROJECT
PA 08-002
March 9, 2010
On May 10, 1993, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 51-93, certifying an
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan ("Eastern Dublin EIR, SCH #91103064). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and
Responses to Comments bound volumes, as well as an Addendum dated May 4, 1993,
assessing a reduced development project alternative. The City Council adopted Resolution
No. 53-93 approving a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the reduced area
alternative on May 10, 1993. On August 22, 1994, the City Council adopted a second
Addendum updating wastewater disposal plans for Eastern Dublin. The Eastern Dublin EIR
evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing Eastern Dublin over a 20 to 30
year period. Since certification of the EIR, many implementing projects have been proposed,
relying to various degrees on the certified EIR.
A subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 99112040) was prepared for a 147-acre
portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area, known as Dublin Ranch Area F. The Mitigated
Negative Declaration was adopted on February 15, 2000 by City Council Resolution No. 34-
00.
In February, 2004 the City of Dublin adopted an Addendum to the 1993 EIR and 2000 MND
that included Area F. This document analyzed the impacts of re-designating General Plan and
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use designations at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street
intersection from "Public-Semi-Public" to "Medium Density Residential" designations. A
majority of the land use designation, "Medium Density Residential," remained unchanged
This current Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for
the Project site, as described below.
Project Description and Prior Approvals
In 1998, an application was filed with the City to approve an amendment to the Dublin General
Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for Planning
Area F of Dublin Ranch within Eastern Dublin. The application, approved in 2000, shifted
higher density residential and commercial land uses between Area F and adjacent Area G to
create a town center in Area G and shifted more medium density residential uses to Area F.
Approved Area F land uses also included middle and elementary school sites, similar to those
adopted in the 1993 General Plan and EDSP. Additionally, a 14.2-acre Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) land use designation was relocated from Area F to Area G. The GPA and SPA
was adopted by City Council Resolution No. 35-00, on March 7, 2000; the Planned Development
zoning with related Stage 1 Development Plan was approved through Ordinance 6-00 on March
21, 2000.
EXHIBIT A TO
ATTACHMENT 4
In 2004, the City of Dublin approved amendments to the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan affecting Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, E and F within the Eastern Dublin area,
as well as other related planned development rezonings. In regard to the current Project site, this
action re-designated lands at the Central Parkway/Grafton Street intersection from "Public-Semi-
Public" to "Medium Density Residential" land use. A majority of the land use designation,
"Medium Density Residential," remained unchanged. The GPA and SPA was adopted by City
Council Resolution No. 43-04, on March 16, 2004; the Planned Development zoning with a
revised Stage 1 Development Plan was approved through Ordinance 12-04.
In 2005, the City approved a further revised Stage 1 Development Plan and a Stage 2
Development Plan for the Project site and neighboring site (Ordinance 24-05), and approved Site
Development Review and Vesting Tentative Maps. In 2007, the City approved a related
Development Agreement.
The current application includes a request to the City of Dublin for the following amended
entitlements: Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development Review, one or more
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps and Development Agreement. The proposed Project would
allow construction of up to 581 dwellings, which would represent a decrease of 113 dwellings
from the currently approved Development Plans. If approved, the new mix of residential
dwellings would include detached green courts, single-family dwellings and tuck-under
townhomes.
Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Project is within the Eastern Dublin planning area, which was the
subject of the Eastern Dublin EIR, certified in 1993. The EIR analyzed the potential effects of
future urban development planned for a then-largely undeveloped area east of the then-
existing city of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous
mitigations adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and
Specific Plan. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City
Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation
measures for development of Eastern Dublin that are applicable to the Project and Project site
continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Eastern Dublin EIR is incorporated
herein by reference.
2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. In 1998, the property owner requested modifications to
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In response to the application and
consistent with the City's practice for projects in Eastern Dublin, the City prepared an Initial
Study to determine if the requests would require additional environmental review beyond that set
forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR. The Initial Study disclosed that many of the anticipated impacts
of the general and specific plan amendments were adequately addressed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR. This was predictable given the comprehensive planning for the development area; the
Eastern Dublin EIR's analysis of buildout under the Dublin General Plan and East Dublin
Specific Plan land use designations and policies; the long term 20-30 year focus of the Dublin
General Plan, East Dublin Specific Plan and Eastern Dublin EIR analyses. Although the Initial
Study concluded that the Eastern Dublin EIR adequately analyzed most of the potential
Page 2
environmental impacts of the proposed general and specific plan amendments, it also identified
the potential for some new significant impacts or substantially intensified impacts beyond those
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was prepared by the City. The City adopted the 2000 MND and a related
Mitigation Monitoring Program through Resolution No. 34-00. The 2000 MND is hereby
incorporated herein by reference.
2004 Addendum. In 2004, an Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND was
approved for General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan amendments affecting Dublin
Ranch Areas B, E and F (see City Council Resolution No. 47-04 adopted March 16, 2004).
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 Eastern Dublin EIR, the previous MND and previous Addendum to
determine if any further environmental review was required for the actions proposed for this
Project site.
The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated February 22, 2010, 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 involving new or more severe significant
impacts? There are no substantial changes to the Project analyzed in the Eastern Dublin
EIR, 2000 MND or the 2004 Addendum. The Project proposes the same type and general
density of dwelling units but with 113 fewer dwellings than currently approved. No
changes or modifications have been requested or are required to the Dublin General Plan
or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan to accommodate proposed uses and activities.
b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving
new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions
assumed in the Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000 MND or the 2004 Addendum. This is
documented in the Initial Study prepared for this Project dated February 22, 2010.
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
Page 3
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. The
applicant's plans for Sorrento East project are consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR and
2000 MND mitigation measures.
d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration
be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is
required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond
those identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous MND and the previous Addendum.
Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based
on an Initial Study dated February 22, 2010. The Addendum and Initial Study reviews the
proposed development activities discussed above. Through the adoption of this Addendum
and related Initial Study, the City determines that the proposed Project does not require a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further
determines that the Eastern Dublin EIR, previous mitigated negative declaration and
Addendum, and this Addendum/Initial Study adequately address the potential environmental
impacts of the proposed 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 above referenced resolutions, ordinances, Initial Study, Eastern Dublin EIR, the 2000
MND and 2004 Addendum are all available for public review in the Community Development
Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business hours and
are all incorporated herein by reference.
Page 4
Initial Study
Project:
Sorrento East
File # PA 08-002
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
February 2010
RECEIVED
DUBLIN PLANNING
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................2
Prior Approvals and Environmental Review Documents ...................................2
Applicant/ Contact Person ..................................................................................... ..6
Project Description ................................................................................................. ..6
Project Characteristics ............................................................................................ ..7
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................ 19
Determination ......................................................................................................... 19
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .................................................................. 21
Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................... 22
Earlier Analysis/ Incorporation by Reference ...................................................... 31
Discussion of Checklist .......................................................................................... 32
1. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................... 32
2. Agricultural Resources ............................................................................... 35
3. Air Quality ................................................................................................... 36
4. Biological Resources ................................................................................... 44
5. Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 47
6. Geology and Soils ....................................................................................... 49
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................... 52
8. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................... 54
9. Land Use and Planning .............................................................................. 58
10. Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... 59
11. Noise .......................................................................................................... 59
12. Population and Housing .......................................................................... 62
13. Public Services ........................................................................................... 62
14. Recreation .................................................................................................. 64
15. Transportation/ Traffic ............................................................................. 66
16. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................... 69
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................... 76
Initial Study Preparers ........................................................................................... 78
Agencies and Organizations Consulted ............................................................... 78
References ............................................................................................................... 78
Attachment 1 (Biological Resource Letter) ........................................................... 79
INITIAL STUDY
Sorrento East Project
City of Dublin
Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.,) and the CEQA
Guidelines, (Cal. Code Regs. title 14, §§ 15000-15387). for the Sorrento East at Dublin
Ranch, Area F East ("Project site.")
This Initial Study assesses development-level activities related to the proposed
amendments to the following approvals: Stage 1 & the Stage 2 Planned Development
Zoning, Site Development Review (SDR), vesting tentative subdivision map and
development agreement, all of which are described below in the Project Description.
The amendments to the existing City of Dublin entitlements are referred to herein as the
"Project."
Prior Approvals and Environmental Review Documents
1993 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Program EIR. A
considerable amount of CEQA work has been done already for future development in
Eastern Dublin that includes the Project site. A Program Environmental Impact Report
was certified through Resolution No. 51-93 by the City of Dublin in 1993 for the Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan (Eastern Dublin General Plan
Amendment and Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.
91103064); referred to as the "Eastern Dublin EIR" or "EDEIR." That EIR evaluated the
following impacts: Land Use; Population, Employment and Housing; Traffic and
Circulation; Community Services and Facilities; Sewer, Water and Storm Drainage;
Soils, Geology and Seismicity; Biological Resources; Visual Resources; Cultural
Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Fiscal Considerations. As part of the City's approval
of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan through Resolution
No. 53-93, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
following impacts: cumulative loss of agriculture and open space land, cumulative
traffic, extension of certain community facilities (natural gas, electric and telephone
service), consumption of non-renewable natural resources, increases in energy uses
through increased water treatment and disposal and through operation of the water
distribution system, inducement of substantial growth and concentration of population,
earthquake ground shaking, loss or degradation of botanically sensitive habitat,
regional air quality, noise and alteration of visual character. The Eastern Dublin EIR
was challenged in court and was found to be legally adequate.
The underlying project includes the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment (EDGPA)
and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (EDSP). The approved project was a modified
City of Dublin Page 2
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
version of the original EDGPA for the 6,920-acre Eastern Dublin planning area. The
original EDGPA proposed to change commercial land use designations on County
property in the southwest portion of the GPA area and agriculture/ open space
designations elsewhere in the planning area to a range of urban uses. At the same time,
a new EDSP addressed 3,328 acres within the larger 6,920-acre EDGPA. The EDSP
supplements the EDGPA with more detailed land use designations, policies, programs
and regulations.
The original EDGPA land use plan proposed to replace the undeveloped planning area
with a mixed-use urban community. At buildout, the EDGPA planning area was
projected to provide 17,970 new residences on 4,993 acres, including 2,672 acres
designated for Rural Residential use with a 100-acre minimum parcel size.
Approximately 10.6 million square feet of new commercial space, 25 parks on 287 acres,
571 acres of designated open space, and 12 new schools were also planned. Buildout
was expected to occur over a 20-30 year period from the start of construction.
The EDSP encompassed 3,328 acres in the western portion of the EDGPA planning area.
Seventy percent of the EDGPA residential development and 94% of the new commercial
space was planned for the Specific Plan area. The land use plan called for compact
villages with residential and neighborhood serving uses. Employment-generating
commercial uses are generally provided along arterials with transit access.
The Eastern Dublin EIR was based on the original 6,920-acre planning area and land use
designations, and 3,328-acre Specific Plan area, both as described above. As required by
CEQA, the EIR also identified project alternatives, including a Reduced Planning Area
(RPA) alternative, which the City Council adopted in a modified form in 1993.
The adopted modified RPA alternative reduced the GPA area by 2,744 acres, provided
for buildout of the Specific Plan area and buildout of the EDGPA area only within the
Dublin Sphere of Influence.
Annexation and Prezoning. The Project site and surrounding properties in Dublin
Ranch were annexed to the City of Dublin on September 28, 1995. The annexation and
reorganization encompassed 1,538 acres of land, approximately 1,111 of which was
located in Dublin Ranch. The annexation areas were prezoned to the PD, Planned
Development zoning district with uses based on the general plan and specific plan land
use designations.
2000 Area F Approval. In 2000, an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
("MND") was approved by the Dublin City Council (Resolution No. 34-00, dated
February 15, 2000) for a General Plan Amendment, Eastern Dublin Specific Plan
Amendment and a Stage 1 Planned Development rezoning for Dublin Ranch Planning
Area F. The Initial Study analyzed all of the environmental topics recommended in
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Based on additional site-specific analysis of biological
resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and traffic and circulation
supplemental mitigation measures were adopted by the City.
City of Dublin Page 3
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
For this Initial Study, the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration is referred to as the "2000
MND."
2004 Approvals. In 2004, the City of Dublin approved amendments to the General Plan
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan affecting Planning Areas B, E and F within the Eastern
Dublin area, as well as other related planned development rezonings. In regard to the
current Project site, this action re-designated lands at the Central Parkway/ Grafton
Street intersection from "Public-Semi-Public" to "Medium Density Residential" land
use. A majority of the land use designation, "Medium Density Residential" remain
unchanged.
An Addendum to the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR was approved in 2004 for these actions
(see City Council Resolution No. 47-04 adopted March 16, 2004). This Addendum is
hereby incorporated by reference into this document and is referred to as the "2004
Addendum."
The following two tables depict exiting approved land uses for Planning Area F (Table
1) and for the Sorrento East site (Table 2).
Table 1. Existing Planning Area F/Sorrento at Dublin Ranch
Approved Land Uses
Land Use Category Gross Net DUs Gross Net
Acres Acres Density Densi
Medium Density Residential/ Open 103.5 89.7 1,112 10.7 12.4
Space du/ac. du/ ac.
Neighborhood Park 5.5 5.2 n/a n/a n/a
Neighborhood Square 2.4 2.0
Community Recreational Facility (0.68 0.68 net*
net)*
Total 112.0 97.5 1,112 10.7 12.4
du/ac du/ac
Source: Project Applicant, 2008
* Acreage included under medium density residential, acreage shown accounts only for recreational area.
** Acreage included under medium density residential. Acreage does not include private recreational
facilities in Neighborhoods 9 and 11.
Table 2, below, summarizes existing approved land uses for just the eastern
portion of the overall Sorrento project, consisting of 67.9 gross acres of land.
City of Dublin Page 4
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Table 2. Existing Sorrento East Approved Land Uses
Existing Land Use Existing Existing Existing Existing Existing
Gross Net Acres Units Gross Net
Acres Density Density
Neighborhood 6 10.1 8.5 75 7.4 du/ac 8.8 du/ac
Neighborhood 7 10.9 9.5 94 8.6 du/ac 9.9 du/ac
Neighborhood 8 11.9 11.2 148 12.4 13.2
du/ ac du/ ac
Neighborhood 9 13.8 11.8 117 8.5 du / ac 9.9 du / ac
Neighborhood 10 14.3 12.6 260 18.2 20.6
du/ac du/ac
Neighborhood 11 NA NA NA NA NA
Open Space (zoned 1.4 NA NA NA NA
residential)
Total Medium Density 62.4 694 11.1 12.6 du/ac
Residential du/ac
Neighborhood Park 5.5 5.2
Community Recreational .68
Facility (excludes private
recreation facilities in
Neighborhoods 9 and 10)
Total 67.9 60.1 694 11.1 12.6
du/ac du/ac
*Acreage included under medium density residential; acreage shown accounts only for
recreational area.
**School Site has been transferred and is not part of the Project.
Source: Project Applicant, 2009
2005 Approvals. In 2005, the City approved amendments to the Stage I Planned
Development for the Sorrento Project (Area F West and East) to revise the maximum
number of units in Dublin Ranch Area F (PA 01-037 and Ordinance No. 24-05) and
approving a Stage 2 Development Plan for Sorrento at Dublin Ranch (PA 04-042 and
Ordinance 24-05). Also in 2005, the City approved Site Development Review and
Vesting Tentative Maps for the Sorrento Project (Area F West and East) (PA 04-042 and
Resolution 05-52). On October 2, 2007, the City approved a Development Agreement for
Sorrento East.
Current Proposal. This Initial Study has been prepared to address requested zoning and
land use changes for the Sorrento East Project as described more fully below. Current
approvals that are proposed to be amended for the Project includes the 2004 General
Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, the 2005 PD Stage 1 Development Plan and Stage
2 Development Plan, the 2005 Site Development Review (SDR) and Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map and the 2007 Development Agreement.
City of Dublin Page 5
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
This Initial Study further examines whether additional environmental review is
required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 or 15163. The resolutions, ordinances
and prior CEQA documents referenced above are incorporated by reference, and are all
available for review by the public during normal business hours at the Community
Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, 94568.
Applicant/Contact Person
SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC
Attn: Pat Costanzo
11990 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 200
Los Angeles CA 90049
Phone: (310) 806-9871
Project Description
Project location and context. The Project includes proposed land use entitlements for an
approximately 68-acre (gross) site located in Eastern Dublin, California. Exhibit 1 shows
the regional location of Dublin in relation to the Bay area. Exhibit 2 shows the Project
site location in relation to the City of Dublin. The site is bounded on the north by
Gleason Drive, on the west by Grafton Street, on the east by a Lockhart Street, and on
the south by Central Parkway.
Access to the site is provided by both Central Parkway and Gleason Drive, which
intersect with Tassajara Road to the west. In turn, Tassajara Road is linked to Interstate
580 via an existing interchange thus providing regional connections.
Exhibit 3 shows the site in context with other surrounding streets and properties.
The Project site contains no buildings and is characterized by annual grasslands. No
trees grow on the site, and the site has been mass graded pursuant to the existing
entitlements. The topography consists of mass graded terraces, generally trending
northeast to southwest. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential uses to
the north (Verona), medium density multi-family residential uses to the west (Sorrento
West), high-density multi-family residential uses to the south (The Courtyards and The
Groves) and vacant land to the east.
Surrounding land uses include single-family residential uses to the north (the
Verona project), medium-density multi-family residential uses to the west
(Sorrento West), medium and medium-high density multi-family residential uses
to the south (the Courtyards) and vacant land to the east, which is being
developed as the City of Dublin Sports Park. The first phase of this park is
nearing completion.
City of Dublin Page 6
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Project Characteristics
Overview. The application includes a request to the City of Dublin for the following
amended entitlements: Stage 1 & Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Design Review
permit(s), one or more Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps and Development
Agreement to allow the development on the site described below. No changes have
been requested in existing General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan land use
designations.
The proposed Project would allow construction of up to 581 dwellings, which would
represent a decrease of 113 dwellings from the currently approved Stage 1 & Stage 2
PD Development Plans. The Project would also modify the mix of dwelling units by
increasing the proportion of detached dwelling units and increase the number of
attached dwellings. If approved, the new mix of residential dwellings would include
detached green courts, single-family dwellings and tuck-under townhomes.
In addition, the following items detail the differences between the approved Project and
the proposed Project. The proposed Project will consist of the following elements, all
designed to respond to recent changes in the residential market:
• The Sorrento East community site plan is proposed to be reorganized to
centralize a park within the residential neighborhoods by creating a park parcel
that is more usable in terms of configuration, visual and physical access, and
grading.
• The redesign of the Project would create a predominantly detached
neighborhood community, with the overall unit count decreased by 113
dwellings.
• The central open space element and pedestrian walk in Neighborhood 8 would
be enlarged to facilitate the pedestrian bridge overcrossing and trail connection
from Sorrento West and terminates at the Sorrento East neighborhood park.
This would enable an improved pedestrian connection between Sorrento West
and East, and would provide a more substantial green belt and amenity within
the community.
• Neighborhood Park gross acreage is proposed to be increased by 0.1 acre, but
decreased on a net acreage basis by 0.1 acres.
• A private recreation facility is proposed to be centrally located within the Project
site to ensure usability of this amenity. The recreation facility would include a
swimming pool, spa, children's wading pool, outdoor deck and bar-b-que area.
Recreational building would include dining areas, a lounge, a great room, an
aerobics facility/ fitness center and restrooms.
• The majority of the interior residential streets are proposed to be realigned, as
well as incorporating separated sidewalks with parkways. This would enhance
the livability and character of the neighborhoods.
• Backbone streets Capoterra and Lee Thompson are proposed to be realigned to
improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation within and through the project.
City of Dublin Page 7
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
• The grading concept is proposed to be modified to reflect the proposed changes
in the site plan. In many cases retaining walls are proposed to be replaced with
slope banks to improve the appearance of streetscapes.
• Infrastructure layouts are proposed to be reconfigured to accommodate the new
street and neighborhood designs.
Table 3 shows the proposed land use mix for the Project and Table 4 summarizes
proposed land uses for each neighborhood (see Exhibit 5 for the location of each
neighborhood).
Table 3.2009 Proposed Sorrento East Planning Area Land Uses
Land Use Category Gross Net DUs Gross Net
Acres Acres Density Density
Medium Density Residential/ 62.3 54.8 581 9.3 10.6
Open Space du. / ac. du/ ac.
Neighborhood Park 5.6 5.1 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Total 67.9 59.9 581 9.3 9.3
du/ ac du/ac
Source: Project Applicant, 2009
Table 4. Proposed Sorrento East Neighborhood Summary
Proposed Land Use/ Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed
Type Gross Net Units Gross Net
Acres Acres Density Density
Neighborhood 6/ 9.2 8.5 102 9.4 du ac 11.1
Detached Green Court du/ac
Neighborhood 7/ 8.5 10.0 95 9.5 du / ac 11.2
Detached Green Court du/ac
Neighborhood 8/ 11.3 12.0 138 11.5 12.2
Detached Green Court du/ac du/ac
Neighborhood 9/ 4.9 6.6 68 10.3 13.9
Tuck-Under Townhomes du/ac du/ac
Neighborhood 10 / 13.1 14.9 112 13.1 14.9
Single Family Detached du/ac du/ac
Neighborhood 11 / 7.2 7.4 66 8.9 du / ac 9.2 du / ac
Single Family Detached
Source: MacKay & Somps, 2009
The proposed Stage 1 Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 4. The proposed Stage 2
Development Plan is shown on Exhibit 5.
Project details. Following is a description of proposed land uses, designs of proposed
buildings, building heights, site access and circulation, parking, utility services, water
quality protection, grading, inclusionary housing requirements, public art, and phasing.
City of Dublin Page 8
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Land Use Types. A range of attached and detached residential product types would be
constructed on the Site. The following types are envisioned:
• Single Family Dwellings
• Detached Green Courts
• Tuck-Under Townhouses
Specifically, Neighborhoods 6, 7, and 8 would be composed of various sizes of detached
dwellings sited in a green court configuration. Green courts are designed to have
dwelling unit entries accessed from a common central green space that is separated
from vehicular traffic. A private recreation facility would be placed central to these
three neighborhoods to provide recreation opportunities for the residents of
neighborhoods 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Components of the private recreation facility was
described above.
Neighborhood 8 would include divided pedestrian corridor that would be the eastern
landing of the Sorrento pedestrian over-crossing of Grafton Street, with the western
bridge landing located in Sorrento West.
Neighborhood 9 would include row, tuck under townhouse and stacked flat buildings
in flat pad and split pad configurations. Building heights for the stacked flat units
would range from 36' 7" (along street frontages) stepping down to approximately 45' 7"
at the rear of the lots, which would have a lower grade.
Neighborhoods 10 and 11 would be developed with traditional single family dwellings
on individual lots.
A Neighborhood Park site would be located in the east-central portion of the Project
site. Park improvements would be constructed by others.
Building, Urban Design, Open Space and Landscaping. The overall design of the proposed
Project would include a mix of attached and detached medium density residences with
a majority of the dwellings organized within green courts and alleys.
The Project continues the concept of creating a high quality and attractive community
composed of six neighborhoods surrounding centrally located amenities of parks,
linked trail systems, community recreation facilities and open space systems. Project
uses would generally placed in the same location as previously approved. Architectural
and landscape elements and details are proposed to relate to and maintain the Italian
hill town character established in the existing Sorrento project.
The Project would also provide a visible and connected vehicular access and pedestrian
circulation consistent with the existing topography, building infrastructure and adjacent
residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood areas and street alignments would generally
adhere to the previous Sorrento East plan.
City of Dublin Page 9
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
The architectural scale and style are intended to blend in with the existing adjacent
neighborhoods of Sorrento West. Varying roof configurations and massing would be
employed to reflect the flavor of the hillside European hillside villages in Italy.
Proposed landscaping would include a neighborhood street scene that would have a
mix of architectural styles, with sidewalks connecting the front door of the homes to the
street. Various entry monuments would be located to emphasize the passage into the
project, neighborhoods, and courtyards. Streets would typically have separated
sidewalks with landscape parkways or tree planting bays within the parking lane.
Landscape walls, accents and sidewalks would be used to emphasize the pedestrian
experience by connecting together the various neighborhoods, recreational centers,
parks and school.
Building Heights. Heights of the buildings within the Sorrento East Project would range
from generally 26 feet to 65 feet for architectural tower structures.
Access and Circulation. Vehicular access within the Project site would include single
main access points from Central Parkway and Lockhart Street and two main drives and
one secondary drive from Grafton Street. No direct vehicular access would be provided
from Gleason Drive. The circulation system is shown on Exhibit 4.
Within the Project, primary north-south vehicular access would be provided by Lee
Thompson Street. This street would intersect Central Parkway to the south and provide
a lengthy frontage along the western boundary of the proposed neighborhood park site.
Palermo Way would provide primary east-west vehicular circulation, extending
between Grafton Street in the west to Lockhart Street in the east. Palermo Way would
provide access to both the proposed neighborhood park as well as to an elementary
school site, which is not a part of the Project.
A number of smaller public local streets would provide access within each of the
planned neighborhoods. Private interior alleys and courts would then serve individual
dwellings within the Project.
Sidewalks are that which connects this Project to Sorrento West.
Parking. Resident parking would be provided as part of each dwelling or multi-family
building within the Project. This would include private enclosed garages for each
dwelling unit along with on-street guest parking. Parking would be provided on the
site that meets or exceeds City parking requirements.
Utility Services. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) would provide domestic
and recycled water to the site as well as wastewater treatment and disposal services in
accordance with the DSRSD Eastern Dublin Facilities Master Plan.
City of Dublin Page 10
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
The Project Developer will be required to install local water lines as well as paying fees
to DSRSD to assist in funding upgraded water facilities in this portion of Eastern
Dublin, consistent with applicable DSRSD Facility Master Plans.
Wastewater service would require the Project developer to install local underground
sewer lines to convey wastewater to DSRSD's downstream sanitary sewer mains and
eventually to the regional treatment plant. Sewer lines are all proposed to be gravity
flow.
When available, recycled water may be provided to the Project site for use in irrigation
of common open space areas, neighborhood park, and other areas. This would reduce
the need for potable water for the proposed Project.
Storm drainage facilities would consist of constructing on-site drainage inlets and
underground drainage pipes and connecting to existing facilities in public streets to
transport storm water runoff into the regional Dublin Ranch water quality basin,
Water Quality Protection. The proposed Project will be subject to Best Management
Practices to ensure water quality standards as enforced by the City of Dublin. Storm
water treatment for the Project is proposed to be accommodated by the existing Dublin
Ranch regional water quality basin located downstream of the project area near
Interstate. 580. The basin incorporates vegetative bio-filters and other devices for final
stormwater treatment prior to disposal into regional drainage facilities.
Project Grading. The site has been mass graded into terraces to accommodate buildings,
utilities, and other improvements for the previously approved Sorrento East Project.
Necessary permits have been obtained prior to grading operations from appropriate
federal, state and local agencies. More refined grading is proposed to occur based on the
final site and grading plans.
Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Dublin's Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 8.68) requires
that 12.5 percent of the number of swelling units in each development project be
reserved for occupancy by very low, low and moderate income households. This
requirement can be met by construction of the specified number of dwellings, payment
of in-lieu fees to the City for up to 57o of the requirement, dedicating land for
construction of future housing projects, rehabilitating existing qualifying units, or any
combination thereof, or by alternative methods approved by the City Council.
The approved project (694 units) was subject to credits for affordable housing as
part of the greater Dublin Ranch. The Project's inclusionary housing requirement
has therefore been satisfied.
Parks and Recreation. The approved project includes 694 units and would have
constructed a 5.0 net acre neighborhood park and a private recreational facility. The
proposed Project would decrease the number of units by 113 dwellings and includes a
5.1 net acre neighborhood park in addition to one private community recreation facility,
similar to Sorrento West. The park would not be built by the Sorrento East developer.
City of Dublin Page 11
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Phasing. It anticipated that the proposed Sorrento East Project would be constructed in
several phases. Phasing for the overall proposed Project is unknown and subject to
market demands. Utility connections, access, grading and emergency services would
be provided to meet the requirements of the City of Dublin and other potentially
affected service providers.
Public Art. Pursuant to applicable provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, the
Project developer will install public art on the Site.
Development Agreement. A Development Agreement has been approved for this Project
and the Agreement is proposed to be amended to reflect the revised Project as described
above.
Requested land use entitlements. Amendments to the following land use entitlements have
been requested to allow implementation of the proposed Project:
• Stage 1 Development Plan (PA 01-037),
• Stage 2 Development Plan (PA 04-042),
• Site Development Review (PA 04-042),
• Vesting Tentative Maps 7651-7656 (PA 04-042) and 7982-7983, and
• Development Agreement.
City of Dublin Page 12
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
p U 10 Miles
EXHIBIT 1-REGIONAL LOCATION
INITIAL STUDY
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F
City of Dublin
January 2010
Ivilhauer P:\1
1-Re
?ows? n d7q t}o?e
Pacific Ocean
EA
EXHIBIT 2-PROJECT SITE LOCATION
INITIAL STUDY
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F
City of Dublin
January 2010
1-05-2010 14:42:57 Ivi
NORTH
KS
®AWff & 8 ?
AREA F NORTH
/,f4i
I?
COMMUNITY PARK
:?A,
EXHIBIT 3- SITE CONTEXT
INITIAL STUDY
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F
City of Dublin
January 2010
N O R T H
KS
?i
Lam
L I'LL
.? NDg1VE?
?Y
P/SP GLEA30 Sorrento East at Dublin !
P/SP = Ranch Area F f
(Multi-Use Trail)
0.6 ac gross CP
F Sorrento West at 0.6 ac net
°w Dublin Ranch NP ES ,,ti / (sue P?j
vz? Area F 5.6 ac gross (Not a Pan)
d NS 5.0 ac net
.4xgw N
2.0 x ns t
m
41.1 ac gross
i 34.8 ac net ( '\_QS
M r
62.3 AC Gross
54.9 AC Net
x. _ P
SP R'AY? _ r M
I r ?? a== VC ? ? ? ? ? ?`
i VC
EXHIBIT 4-PROPOSED STAGE 1 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INITIAL STUDY
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F
City of Dublin
January 2010
Ivilhauer P:\1
NORTH
NM
NARK & IM
a gyres R9mm
I .
y
y
f
- 1?
EXHIBIT 5-PROPOSED STAGE 2 PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
INITIAL STUDY
SORRENTO EAST AT DUBLIN RANCH AREA F N O R T H
City of Dublin NTs
January 2010
IIIACKU & SOBS
1-05-2010 14:38:49 Ivilhouer P:\19394\plonning\is-EXH5-PD2.dwg
1. Project description An amendment to the existing PD Stage 1 &
Stage 2 Development Plans, Site Development
Review approval, Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map(s) and an amendment to an
existing Development Agreement to allow the
construction of up to 581 attached and
detached dwelling units and a neighborhood
park site on approximately 68 gross acres of
land.
2. Lead agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94583
3. Contact person: Michael A. Porto, Dublin Community
Development Department
(925) 833 6610
4. Project location: Bounded by Central Parkway to the south,
Grafton Street to the west, Lockhart Street to
the east and Gleason Drive to the north. APNs
985-0053-008, 985-053-009 and 985-0053-010.
5. Project contact person:
6. Existing General Plan/
Specific Plan Land Use
Designation
7. Existing Zoning
Pat Costanzo
SR Structured Lot Options I, LLC
MDR-Medium Density Residential and NP-
Parks & Recreation
PD- Planned Development
8. Other public agency necessary and/or desired approvals:
• Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, and
Building Permits (City of Dublin)
• Sewer and water connections (DSRSD)
• Encroachment permits (City of Dublin)
• Notice of Intent (State Water Resources
Control Board)
City of Dublin Page 18
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below may be potentially affected by this
Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality
Resources
- Biological - Cultural Resources - Geology Soils
Resources
- Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use
Hazardous Quality Planning
Materials
- Mineral Resources - Noise - Population
Housing
- Public Services - Recreation - Transportation
Circulation
- Utilities Service - Mandatory
Systems Findings of
Significance
Determination
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.
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
and MND pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR and MND, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to
the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration will
be prepared.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
City of Dublin Page 19
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
_ 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.
Signature: W. ,."- `(' w--VJ Date: 2 ?`7
Printed Name: '`4ty- - Pw? For: C-A-7 ?f OJo6 -
City of Dublin Page 20
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers. Certain "no impact"
answers are supported by the information sources the 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), or, in this case, there is no
impact of the proposed project beyond that which was considered
previously in the 1993 EIR, and / or the 2000 Initial Study / Mitigated
Negative Declaration. A "no impact" answer should be explained where it
is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action, 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) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial
evidence that a supplemental effect is significant. It there are one or more
"potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures
has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" to a "less than
significant impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level.
City of Dublin Page 21
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
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: 1,2,5)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(Source: 1,2,5)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
(Source: 1,5)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area? (Source: 2,3,5)
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: 2,3, 4)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use,
or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 1,6)
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: 4,6)
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: 2,3)
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 2,3)
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
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 22
February 2010
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?
(2,364)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Source: 2,3,4)
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (Source: 5)
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
Serv ice?(Source: 2 ,3 ,4)
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: 2,3,4)
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: Source: 2,3,4)
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, 3,4)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as tree
protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 23
February 2010
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: 2,3)
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: 2,3)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archeological resource
pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2,3)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource, site or unique geologic
feature? (Source: 2,3)
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 (2, 3)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? (Source 2, 3)
iv) Landslides? (Source 2, 3,4)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (Source: 2,3)
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, 3,7)
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, 7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 24
February 2010
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or Option wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2,7)
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: 7)
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: 7)
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: 7)
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: 7)
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: 2,5)
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, 5)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
(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
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 25
February 2010
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: 2,5)
8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (Source: 2,4)
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? (2,3,5)
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: 2,3,5)
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: 2, 3, 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: 77)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(Source: 6)
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: 2,7)
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 26
February 2010
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows? (Source: 7)
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? (7)
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow?
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
(Source: 1, 2, 5)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1,
2,5)
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
(1,2,5)
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,
2)
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: 1, 2)
11. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
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? (2,3)
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise
levels? (Source: 2,3)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
levels without the project? (2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitiloation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 27
February 2010
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project? (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? (2, 5)
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: 2,4)
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, 5)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (5)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement of
housing elsewhere? (Source: 6,7)
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 ratios,
response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 3,6)
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
Solid Waste
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 28
February 2010
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, 5)
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: 2, 6)
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, 3)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a
level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for
designated roads or highways? (2, 3)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
(2,3)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm
equipment? (2, 3)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (6)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (7)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs
supporting Option transportation (such as bus
turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 7)
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
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 29
February 2010
16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board? (2, 4, 6)
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?
(2, 4, 6)
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? (2, 4, 6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing water entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? (2, 4, 6)
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: 5)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs? (Source: 6)
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 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
Miti cyation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
City of Dublin
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project
PA 08-002
Page 30
February 2010
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
Mitigation Less than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
x
X
1. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan
2. Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment/ Specific Plan EIR
3. 2000 Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. H.T. Harvey Biological Resources letter
5. Site Visit
6. Discussion with service provider
7. Other Source
XVII. Earlier Analyses and Incorporation By Reference
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are
available for review.
The following environmental documents have been used in the preparation of
the Initial Study. All are available for review at the City of Dublin Community
Development Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA, during normal business
hours. Each of the following documents are hereby incorporated by reference
into this Initial Study.
• Eastern Dublin Environmental Impact Report, May, 1993, (SCH
#91103064)
• Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for Dublin Ranch Planning
Area F, November 1999 (SCH# 99112942)
• Initial Study/ Addendum EIR for Dublin Ranch Planning Areas B, E and
F, February 2004
City of Dublin Page 31
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Discussion of Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
The Project is set in a portion of Eastern Dublin that is transitioning to urban uses under
the auspices of the City of Dublin General Plan Amendment and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan, adopted in 1993.
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that the Eastern Dublin area was (at the time of the EIR
preparation) visually dominated by expanses of grasslands and rolling hills. Generally,
at the time the EDSP was adopted, the southerly portion of the EDSP area that contains
the Project site was flat, open and covered with grasslands and agricultural field crops.
In the northerly portions, steeper foothills framed canyons settled with farms and
ranchettes. In 1993, the EDGPA /EDSP planning area was undeveloped at urban levels
and conveyed a distinct rural atmosphere characteristic of the inland coastal valleys of
Northern California. Currently, the southerly and central portions of the EDSP are
primarily developed.
Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR and approval of the EDGPA/EDSP, urban
development has proceeded in Eastern Dublin in accordance with these land use
regulatory documents.
The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the effects of urbanizing vacant lands and identified
significant and unavoidable impacts 3.8 / B and 3.8 / F regarding alteration of the area's
rural, open space character. Visual and aesthetic impacts were further discussed in the
2000 MND.
The Project site is vacant and contains no structures. The Project site has been mass
graded pursuant to permits issued by the City of Dublin and existing topography is
characterized by a number of incised low areas mixed with flatter areas. No trees or
rock outcroppings exist on the site.
Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway approximately one-half mile south of
the site.
Surrounding properties to the north, south and west consist of urban uses, primarily
medium and low-density residential dwellings. Property east of the Project site is
vacant and a City park is under construction on this site.
As an undeveloped area, no light sources exist on the Project site, although street lights
have been installed on portions of Central Parkway, Gleason Drive, Lockhart Street and
a portion of Palermo Street.
City of Dublin Page 32
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Regulatory framework and Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. In 1996, the City of Dublin adopted
scenic policies and standards for the Eastern Dublin area, known as the Eastern Dublin
Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards. The purpose of this document is to implement
EDSP visual protection polices as related to individual development projects.
The document contains the following overall implementing policies for Eastern Dublin
scenic corridors.
1. Maintain a sense of place for Eastern Dublin with relation to natural landforms
and topography.
2. Allow the traveler along a Scenic Corridor to experience the varied features of
the landscape.
3. Assure that development along the Scenic Corridors is well planned and
sensitively sited to respect natural topography.
4. Achieve high quality design and visual character for all development visible for
all development visible from designated Scenic Corridors, generally within 700
feet of a Scenic Corridor.
5. Assure that landscaping adjacent to the Scenic Corridor harmonizes with the
scenic environment.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of impacts and
mitigation measures applicable to this Project to reduce anticipated visual resource
impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.8/1.0 reduced project impacts related to standardized tract
development (IM 3.8/A) to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires
future developers to establish visually distinct communities which preserves the
character of the natural landscape by protecting key visual elements and
maintaining views from major travel corridors.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/2.0 reduced the impact of converting the rural and open
space character of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM
3.8/B) but not to a less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires
implementation of the land use plan that emphasizes retention of predominant
natural features. Even with adherence to this measure, IM 3.8 / B would remain
significant and unavoidable on both a project and cumulative level.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/3.0 reduced the impact of obscuring distinctive natural
features of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan area (IM 3.8/C) to a
less-than-significant level. The mitigation measure requires implementation of
policies to preserve the natural beauty of the hills, creeks and major stands of
vegetation.
City of Dublin Page 33
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
• Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0 and 7/1 reduced impacts on scenic vistas (IM 3.8/I)
to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures require protection of
designated open space areas and directs the City to conduct a visual survey of
the EDSP area to identify and map viewsheds.
The 2000 MND contains Mitigation Measure 1 that requires pole-mounted street lights
to be equipped with cut-off lenses and directed downward and building security light
fixtures to be directed downward.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous CEQA documents.
Pro'ec? t Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR
identified one potentially significant impact with regard to scenic vistas: Impact
3.8/I, development of the Eastern Dublin area that will alter the character of
scenic vistas and may obscure important ridgelands. Mitigation Measures 3.8/7.0
and 7.1 were adopted to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
These measures require preserving views of open spaces and requires the City to
conduct a visual survey of the Eastern Dublin area to identify and map
viewsheds of scenic areas.
Mitigation Measure 3.8/ 7.1 has been implemented by the City through the
preparation and adoption of the Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and
Standards. The Policies and Standards document do not include any design
recommendations for the proposed Sorrento East Project or immediately
surrounding areas. Development of the site would not substantially obscure
ridgelands or other scenic vistas.
Since the proposed Project includes the same type, design and a lower density as
the originally approved Project that has been analyzed in the 2000 MND, no new
or more severe impacts with regard to scenic vistas beyond those identified in
the Eastern Dublin EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic
highway? LS. Impacts to scenic resources have been analyzed in item "a," above.
The Project site is located approximately three-quarters to one mile north of the
nearest designated scenic highway, I-580. No new or more severe significant
impacts would result with regard to scenic resources adjacent to a scenic
highway beyond those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR.
C) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? LS. The Project
site is vacant and contains no trees, rock outcroppings or other significant visual
features and has been mass-graded pursuant to previous City approvals.
Alteration of the rural and open space character of the Eastern Dublin area was
determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact in the 1993 Eastern
City of Dublin Page 34
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Dublin EIR on both a project and cumulative level. A Statement of Overriding
Concerns was approved with adoption of the Eastern Dublin GPA and Specific
Plan for this impact. Approval and construction of the Sorrento East Project
would be consistent with this finding and no new or more severe impacts would
result with regard to degradation of the visual character of the site beyond those
identified in Eastern Dublin EIR.
d) Create light or glare? LS. The Project site contains no light sources and
construction of the proposed Project would add additional light sources in the
form of streetlights along internal roadways as well as new housing and yard
lights. Properties adjacent to the Project site to the north, south and west are
developed and contain light sources. The potential effect of increased light and
glare on and off the Project site was analyzed in the 2000 MND. The 2000 MND
found that increased levels of light and glare generated by development on the
Project site would be a potentially significant impact. The 2000 MND contains
Mitigation Measure 1 that requires pole-mounted street lights be equipped with
cut-off lenses and be oriented downward to minimize spill over of unwanted
light and glare. Building security light fixtures are also required to be directed in
a downward fashion. Final building and improvement plans for the Sorrento
East Project will be required to comply with this mitigation measure.
2. Agricultural Resources
Environmental Setting
Figure 3.1-B contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR identifies the Project Site as "lands of
locally important farmlands."
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the Project site was not subject to a Williamson
Act Land Conservation Agreement.
The Alameda County Important Farmland Map (2000) identifies the Project site as
"urban and built up land."
The site is fallow and is not used for grazing or crop production.
Previous CE OA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.1 / F, the cumulative loss
of agricultural lands was a significant and unavoidable impact of urban development in
the Eastern Dublin planning area. Impact 3.1 / C found the discontinuance of
agricultural operations to be less-than-significant.
2000 MND. No other impacts related to agricultural resources were identified in the
2000 MND document.
City of Dublin Page 35
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Project Impacts
a,c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could
result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use ? NI. The Project site is not
used for agricultural production, although it was farmed in the past, and is
surrounded on three sides-north, south and west--with intensive urban
development. The eastern boundary of the site is planned for a Community Park.
Impacts relating to converting the larger Eastern Dublin planning area, including
the Sorrento East site, from previous farming and grazing operations to a range
of urban uses were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR.
Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in
no new or more severe impacts with respect to agricultural resources beyond
those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? NI.
The proposed Project is presently zoned Planned Development that permits
urban uses and there is no existing agricultural zoning on the site. Approval of
the proposed Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act Agreement, since
none currently exist on the Property. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts
would result with regard to these topics than have been analyzed in previous
CEQA documents for this site.
3. Air Quality
Environmental Setting
Air pollution climatology. The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is
determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to
transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are
wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
The Project is within the Livermore Valley. The Livermore Valley forms a small sub
regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
Livermore Valley air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains.
Significant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San
Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County.
The terrain of the Livermore-Amador Valley influences both the climate and air
pollution potential of the sub-regional air basin. As an inland, protected valley, the area
has generally lighter winds and a higher frequency of calm conditions when compared
to the greater Bay Area.
The occurrence of episodes of high atmospheric stability, known as inversion
conditions, severely limits the ability of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants vertically.
Inversions can be found during all seasons in the Bay Area, but are particularly
City of Dublin Page 36
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
prevalent in the summer months when they are present about 9070 of the time in both
morning and afternoon.
According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), air pollution
potential is high in the Livermore Valley, especially for ozone in the summer and fall.
High temperatures increase the potential for ozone, and the valley not only traps locally
generated pollutants but can be the receptor of ozone and ozone precursors from
upwind portions of the greater Bay Area. Transport of pollutants also occurs between
the Livermore Valley and the San Joaquin Valley to the east.
During the winter, the sheltering effect of terrain and its inland location results in
frequent surface-based inversions. Under these conditions pollutants such as carbon
monoxide from automobiles and particulate matter generated by fireplaces and
agricultural burning can become concentrated.
Ambient air duality standards
Criteria Pollutants. Both the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for common
pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that
represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each
pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called "criteria" pollutants
because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in criteria
documents. Table 3 identifies the major criteria pollutants, characteristics, health effects
and major sources. The federal and California state ambient air quality standards are
summarized in Table 4.
The federal and state ambient standards were developed independently with differing
purposes and methods, although both processes attempted to avoid health-related
effects. As a result, the federal and state standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and
particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5).
Suspended particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that
consists of dry solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets
of liquid. These particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and
can be made up of many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust.
"Inhalable" PM consists of particles less than 10 microns in diameter, and is defined
as "suspended particulate matter" or PM,,. Fine particles are less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.,). PM2.5, by definition, is included in PM,o.
Ambient air quality. The state and federal ambient air quality standards cover a wide
variety of pollutants. Only a few of these pollutants are problems in the Bay Area either
due to the strength of the emission or the climate of the region. The BAAQMD
maintains a network of monitoring sites in the Bay Area. The closest to the Project site is
in Livermore. Table 5 summarizes violations of air quality standards at this monitoring
site for the period 2005-2007. Table 5 shows that the federal ambient air quality
City of Dublin Page 37
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
standards for ozone is not met in the Livermore Valley, and state standards for ozone
and PMIO are exceeded.
Attainment status and regional air quality plans. The federal Clean Air Act and the
California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air
quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state
ambient air quality standards are not met as "non-attainment areas." Because of the
differences between the national and state standards, the designation of non-attainment
areas is different under the federal and state legislation.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified the San Francisco Bay Area as
a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour ozone standard. The Bay Area was
designated as unclassifiable / attainment for the federal PMlo and PM2.5 standards.
Under the California Clean Air Act Alameda County is a non-attainment area for ozone
and particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5). The county is either attainment or unclassified
for other pollutants.
Air districts periodically prepare and update plans to achieve the goal of healthy air.
Typically, a plan will analyze emissions inventories (estimates of current and future
emissions from industry, motor vehicles, and other sources) and combine that
information with air monitoring data (used to assess progress in improving air quality)
and computer modeling simulations to test future strategies to reduce emissions in
order to achieve air quality standards. Air quality plans usually include measures to
reduce air pollutant emissions from industrial facilities, commercial processes, motor
vehicles, and other sources. Bay Area plans are prepared with the cooperation of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Association of Bay Area
Governments. Ozone Attainment Demonstrations are prepared for the national ozone
standard and Clean Air Plans are prepared for the California ozone standard.
City of Dublin Page 38
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Table 3. Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Characteristics Health Effects Major Sources
Ozone A highly reactive photochemical Eye Irritation The major sources
pollutant created by the action of Respiratory function ozone precursors are
sunshine on ozone precursors impairment. combustion sources
(primarily reactive hydrocarbons such as factories and
and oxides of nitrogen. Often automobiles, and
called photochemical smog. evaporation of
solvents and fuels.
Carbon Carbon monoxide is an odorless, Impairment of oxygen Automobile exhaust,
Monoxide colorless gas that is highly toxic. It transport in the combustion of fuels,
is formed by the incomplete bloodstream. combustion of wood
combustion of fuels. Aggravation of in woodstoves and
cardiovascular disease. fireplaces.
Fatigue, headache,
confusion, dizziness.
Can be fatal in the case
of very high
concentrations.
Nitrogen Reddish-brown gas that discolors Increased risk of acute Automobile and
Dioxide the air, formed during combustion. and chronic respiratory diesel truck exhaust,
disease. industrial processes,
fossil-fueled power
plants.
Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas Aggravation of chronic Diesel vehicle
with a pungent, irritating odor. obstruction lung exhaust, oil-
disease. powered power
Increased risk of acute plants, industrial
and chronic respiratory processes.
disease.
Particulate Solid and liquid particles of dust, Aggravation of chronic Combustion,
Matter soot, aerosols and other matter disease and heart/ lung automobiles, field
which are small enough to remain disease symptoms. burning, factories
suspended in the air for a long and unpaved roads.
period of time. Also a result of
photochemical
processes.
Source: Donald Ballanti, 2009
City of Dublin Page 39
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Table 4. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Federal State
Time Primary Standard
Standard
Ozone 1-Hour -- 0.09 PPM
8-Hour 0.075 PPM 0.07 PPM
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM
1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average 0.05 PPM 0.03 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.18 PPM
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average 0.03 PPM --
24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM
1-Hour -- 0.25 PPM
PM10 Annual Average -- 20 Ng / m3
24-Hour 150 Ng / m3 50 N / m3
PM2 5 Annual 15 Ng / m3 12 Ng / m3
24-Hour 35 pg/m3 --
Lead Calendar Quarter 1.5 pg/m3 --
30 Day Average -- 1.5 N / m3
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 Ng/m3 --
Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 PPM --
Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.01 PPM --
PPM = Parts per Million
g/ m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards (04/01/08)
http: / / www.arb.ca.gov/ research/ aags / aags2.12df
City of Dublin Page 40
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Table 5. Air Quality Data Summary for Livermore, 2005-2007
Pollutant Standard Days Exceeding Standard In:
2005 2006 2007
Ozone State 1-Hour 6 13 2
Ozone State 8-Hour 7 15 3
Ozone Federal 8-Hour 1 5 1
PM10 Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
PM10 State 24-Hour 0 3 2
PM2_5 Federal 24-Hour 0 0 0
Carbon
Monoxide State/Federal
8-Hour 0 0 0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour 0 0 0
Source: Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (ADAM), 2008. (http:
//www.arb.ca.gov./adam/cgi-bin/adamtop/d2wstart)
Sensitive receptors. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where
sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the
chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses include residences, schools
playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals and
medical clinics. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project site include existing
residences just west of the site (Sorrento West) and proposed City parks on the Project
site and to the east of the site. An elementary school is proposed just east of and outside
the Project site.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Since certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR in 1993, the
issue of contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change has become a more
prominent issue of concern as evidenced by passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no
current statute, regulation, or case law that requires the analysis of greenhouse gasses
and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse
gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR the 2000
MND. Since the Eastern Dublin EIR has been certified and subsequent CEQA
documents adopted, the determination of whether greenhouse gasses and climate
change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on
supplemental or subsequent EIRs (see CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163).
Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those
standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was
not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 (a) (3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change
impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at
the time the Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the 2000 MND adopted or the 2004
City of Dublin Page 41
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Addendum EIR adopted. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gasses was
widely known prior to the 2000 MND and 2004 Addendum. The United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated
and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyzes 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 the certification of the Eastern Dublin EIR
in May 1993, adoption of the Area F MND in 2000 and the 2004 Addendum. Under
CEQA standards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR
or negative declaration. No environmental analysis of the Projects impacts on this issue
is required under CEQA.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed both construction and operational
impacts and contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality
impacts from implementation of the General Plan and EDSP project. These include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.11 / 1.0 reduced project construction dust impacts
(IM 3.11 /A) to less than significant through measures such as watering
construction sites, covering exposed construction surfaces and trucks, and
cleaning construction vehicles. The cumulative impact remained
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11 / 2.0-4.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts related
to vehicle emission from construction equipment (IM 3.11 /B) but not to a less-
than-significant level. These mitigations require emission control from on=site
equipment, completion of a construction impact reduction plan and others. Even
with adherence to these mitigations, this impact remained significant and
unavoidable.
• Mitigation Measures 3.11/5.0-11.0 reduced mobile source emissions from ROG
and NOx (IM 3.11 / C) but not to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures
require coordination of growth with transportation plans and other measures,
many of which are at a policy (not a project) level. Even with adherence to
adopted mitigations, IM 3.11 / C remained significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0-13.0 reduced project and cumulative impacts
related to stationary source emissions (IM 3.11/E) but not to a less-than-
significant level. The two adopted mitigations require reduction of stationary
source emissions to the extent feasible by use of energy conservation techniques
and recycling of solid waste material. Even with adherence to the two measures,
stationary source emissions remained significant and unavoidable.
2000 MND. No other air quality impacts or mitigation measures were included in the
2000 MND.
City of Dublin Page 42
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous CEQA documents.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The
Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.11 / E regarding increased stationary source
air emissions from future development of Eastern Dublin that would remain
significant even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11/12.0 and 13.0.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also assumed increased development in other areas, such
as the San Joaquin Valley, and related commutes to the Bay Area, and identified
cumulative mobile source impact IM 3.11 / C as significant and unavoidable, even
after mitigation. Upon approval of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment
and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these two impacts.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (ABAG) Clean Air Plan is
predicated on population projections for local agencies within the District based on
ABAG's Projections '09, which, in turn is based on a compilation of local agency
general plan documents. Development allowed under the proposed Project would
be consistent with the type and amount of development allowed under the Dublin
General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and would have fewer
residential units than currently approved. There would therefore be no new or
more severe impacts with respect to conflicts with the regional air quality plan
than has been previously analyzed.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS.
Project and cumulative air emission impacts. The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR
identified emission of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
from vehicles as a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact IM 3.11 / Q.
Although the EIR identified several possible measures to mitigate this impact,
including but not limited to implementation of a transportation demand program,
encouragement of mixed-use developments and similar measures, any reduction
of mobile source emissions could not be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Existing Stage 1 Planned Development zoning allow a maximum of 694 dwellings
of various types and densities. The proposed Stage 1 Planned Development zoning
would allow for 581 dwellings, 113 fewer dwellings than have been analyzed in
previously adopted CEQA documents. In addition, the Project design provides
many pedestrian and bicycle connections on and offsite to neighboring uses. In
these ways, the Project implements EDEIR mitigations to reduce vehicle trips and
related emissions and congestion. As such, the Project would not result in new or
more severe significant impacts than previously identified. As noted in the EDEIR,
however, the Project reductions would reduce but not avoid the identified
significant unavoidable impact.
City of Dublin Page 43
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Construction air impacts. The current BAAQMD significance threshold for
construction dust impact is based on the appropriateness of construction dust
controls. If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then air
pollutant emissions for construction activities would be considered less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure MM 3.11/1.0 in the East Dublin EIR identifies
the construction controls that provide reduction of air emissions during
construction phases of development projects and the Project applicant will be
required to adhere to these requirements. Since the BAAQMD has adopted
additional and more stringent dust control measures since certification of the
Eastern Dublin EIR, a condition of Project approval will require that Project
construction activities comply with the most recent construction air quality
reduction strategies adopted by the BAAQMD.
c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. See item "b."
d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable
odors? NI. The proposed Project would include a residential development that
would not include manufacturing or similar land uses, so no significant pollutant
concentrations or objectionable odors would be created and no impact would
result.
4. Biological Resources
Environmental Setting
The Eastern Dublin EIR indicates that the Project site is dominated by non-native
grassland and dryland-farmed (grain crops) habitats (See EDSP EIR Figure 3.7-A).
Biological analyses and wetland delineations were conducted for the Eastern Dublin
EIR as well as the 2000 MND, describing both habitat and species present in the Project
area, and information on wetland resources. As noted in the Project Description
section, the Project site has been mass graded pursuant to United States Army Corps of
Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits as well as a City of
Dublin grading permit.
A letter has been prepared by the Project biologist (H.T. Harvey Associates, dated
December 22, 2008), summarizing existing biological conditions on the site and
indicating that Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures have been or will be complied
with prior to future construction. This letter is included as Appendix 1 and is
incorporated by reference into this Initial Study.
The graded area included ponds with habitat value and species as identified in the prior
CEQA reviews; however, species such as California red-legged frog and California
Tiger Salamander were relocated to offsite mitigation areas, again, in conformance with
applicable permits and requirements.
City of Dublin Page 44
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Special-status plant and wildlife species
The Eastern Dublin EIR and 2000 MND provide background information on the
potential for special-status and sensitive plant and wildlife species that could
potentially occur in the Project area. With the permitted grading on the Project site and
related offsite mitigation and species relocation, many of the species are no longer
expected to occur in the Project area.
Mitigation measures addressing these species have been incorporated into the wetland
fill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on May 23, 2003. In accordance
with the permit conditions, red-legged frogs and tiger salamanders have been
relocated to an off-site mitigation area.
Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands were addressed in the Project area in the Eastern Dublin EIR
and, the 2000 MND. As noted by the HT Harvey letter of December 22, 2008, a wetland
fill permit was issued by the USACE and the wetlands in the vicinity of the Project
have been filled.
Regulatory Framework and Previous CEQA documents
The regulatory framework for this Project includes the previous CEQA documents and
regulations for stream protection.
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated impacts to biological resources from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.7/1.0-4.0 reduced impacts related to direct habitat loss
(IM 3.7 /A) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigations require
minimization of direct habitat loss due to development, preparation of
vegetation management and enhancement plans and development of a grazing
management plan by the City of Dublin.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0 reduced impacts related to indirect loss of vegetation
removal (IM 3.7/B) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.7/5.0
requires revegetation of graded or disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Mitigation Measures 3.7/ 6.0-17.0 reduced impacts related to loss or degradation
of botanically sensitive habitats (IM 3.7/ C) to a less-than-significant level. These
measures require a wide range of steps to be taken by future developers to
minimize impacts to sensitive habitat areas, including preserving natural stream
corridors, incorporating natural greenbelts and open space into development
projects, preparation of individual wetland delineations, preparation of
individual erosion and sedimentation plans and similar actions.
City of Dublin Page 45
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
• Mitigation Measures 3.7/18.0-19.0 reduced impacts related to the San Joaquin kit
fox (IM 3.7/D) to a less-than-significant level. These measures require
consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies regarding the possibility of kit
fox on project sites and preparation of and adherence to a kit fox protection plan.
• Mitigation Measure 3.7/28.0 reduced impacts related to special status
invertebrates (IM 3.7/S) to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires
completion of special surveys for individual species prior to site disturbance.
The Eastern Dublin EIR also addresses potential impacts and mitigation measures
regarding bald eagle, peregrine falcons, red-legged frog, California tiger salamander,
western pond turtle the prairie falcon, northern harrier, black-shouldered kite, sharp-
shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, short-eared owl and California horned lizard.
2000 MND. Mitigation Measure 2 within the 2000 MND was included to mitigate loss
of San Joaquin spearscale and Congdon's tarplant species as well as to protect
Burrowing Owl and American badger and other wildlife species to a level of less-than-
significant. Mitigation Measure 2 remains in force and any remaining requirements will
be met prior to any development on the site.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable mitigation measures
set forth in previous CEQA documents.
Project Impacts
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? NI.
The potential for special-status species to occur the Project has changed since 2004
(the last CEQA document) with respect to habitat availability. Consistent with
existing Project approvals and mitigation measures, habitat has been removed
from the site during construction of infrastructure throughout the Dublin Ranch
Project areas and grading of the Sorrento East Project site has occurred. There are
no new special-status species on the site that were not present at the time of the
2000 MND, when a comprehensive biological reconnaissance was completed. In
addition, numerous, typically monthly, preconstruction surveys for special-status
wildlife species have been conducted on or in areas adjacent to the Project site
since 2003 for the larger Dublin Ranch Project. This is documented in the HT
Harvey letter (Appendix 1).
As part of previous grading of the Project site, necessary permits have been
obtained from appropriate state and federal agencies prior to grading operations,
including but not limited to permits from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and
Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The Project applicant will be required to conduct pre-construction surveys on the
site as required by mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR and
2000 MND. With adherence to these measures, previously identified impacts to
special-status species will be less-than-significant.
City of Dublin Page 46
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
No new or more severe impacts would result with regard to biological resources
beyond those identified in Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND for this site.
b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands?
NI. The Project site has been mass graded in accord with federal and state permits
and approvals as well as a grading permit issued by the City of Dublin. No
wetlands, waters of the US, waters of the State or riparian habitat exist on the site
and no impact will occur. Also refer to the HT Harvey letter in Appendix 1. No
new or more severe impacts are anticipated with regard to wetlands or riparian
habitats on the site beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA documents for the
Project site.
d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? NI. Two small intermittent
drainage channels formerly traversed the site, but have been filled as part of
Corps- and CDFG-permitted grading operations on the Project site as well as
consistent with a City grading permit. However, no significant wildlife movement
occurs on or across the site, due to existing streets and surrounding development,
therefore, development is not expected to preclude any significant wildlife
movements. No new or more severe impacts would occur with respect to this topic
than have been analyzed in previous CEQA documents.
e, J) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. No
significant stands of trees are present on the site, and there are no impacts with
regard to local tree preservation ordinances or policies. The site is not located
within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plans.
Overall, no impacts to biological resources not previously identified in the Eastern
Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND for Area F are expected to occur as a result of this
Project.
5. Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR contains a comprehensive listing of historic, archeological,
Native American and other cultural resources in the overall Eastern Dublin area.
Chapter 3.9 of the EIR, Cultural Resources, does not identify the presence of identified
archeological or prehistoric resources on the Project site.
The site is vacant and does not contain any structures, so that no above ground historic
resources are present on the site. The entire site has been disturbed as a result of mass
grading of the site pursuant to a City of Dublin grading permit and issuance of permits
by appropriate biological regulatory agencies.
City of Dublin Page 47
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated cultural resource impacts from the General Plan and EDSP
project. These include:
Mitigation Measures 3.9/ 1.0-4.0 reduced impacts that could be caused as a result
of disruption or destruction of identified prehistoric resources (Impact 3.9/A).
These measures require approval of a program for testing for presence or
absence of midden deposits and, if significant deposits are found, recordation of
such resources on State survey forms, and retention of a qualified archeologist to
develop a protection plan for such resources in accordance with CEQA.
• Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0-6.0 reduced impacts related to the disruption or
destruction of unrecorded prehistoric resources (IM 3.9/B) to a less-than-
significant level by requiring that construction activity cease if historic or
prehistoric remains are discovered.
2000 MND. This document contains Mitigation Measure 4 that requires the Project
developer to stop work upon finding any prehistoric resource during construction and
that a qualified archeologist inspects such find. If necessary a plan to retrieve or
document the find shall be implemented prior to re-start of work.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable cultural resource
mitigation measures contained in previous CEQA documents.
Project Impacts
a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? NI. The Project site
is vacant and contains no structures of any kind, so there would be no impacts
with regard to historic resources on the site.
b, c) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to archeological or
paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Eastern Dublin EIR identifies a
remote but potentially significant possibility that construction activities,
including site grading, trenching and excavation, may uncover significant
archeological and/or paleontological resources on development sites. Mitigation
Measures 3.9 / 1.0 through 3.9 / 4.0 (page 3.9-6 - 3.9-7) require subsurface testing
for archeological resources if such are found during site disturbance; recordation
and mapping of such resources; and development of a protection program for
resources which qualify as "significant" under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines (then Appendix K). Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 3.9/6.0, also
were adopted to address Eastern Dublin IM 3.9/B, the potential disruption of
any previously unidentified pre-historic resources. These measures require
cessation of construction activities until uncovered cultural resources can be
assessed by a qualified archeologist and a remediation plan approved by the City
of Dublin consistent with CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4 contained in
the 2000 MND also requires preparation of a contingency plan to be
City of Dublin Page 48
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
implemented during Site construction in the event a cultural resources is
uncovered. No new or more significant impacts with regard to archeological or
paleontological impacts beyond those previously, analyzed are therefore
anticipated should the Project be approved.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? NI.
A remote possibility exists that historic or pre-historic human resources could be
uncovered on the site during grading and construction activities. At the time the
Eastern Dublin EIR was certified, the potential for impacts on unknown and
unsurveyed human remains was not a separate CEQA checklist item, as in
current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Former Appendix K, Archeological
Impacts, specifically addressed human remains, which provisions now have
been incorporated into CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and apply to the Project
pursuant to Mitigation Measures 3.9/5.0 and 6.0. Mitigation Measure 4 contained
in the 2000 MND reflects this change to the CEQA Guidelines and was adopted
to mitigate potential impacts to human remains that could be disturbed during
Project construction.
No new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified are
anticipated with regard to disturbance of human remains with adherence to
these Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures, as well as Mitigation Measure 4
contained in the 2000 MND. No new mitigation measures are required.
6. Geology and Soils
Environmental Setting
Soils, geologic and seismic conditions were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the Eastern
Dublin EIR and reviewed in the 2000 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2000 MND
was based on a document entitled "Geotechnical Report, Dublin Ranch, Pao-Yeh Lin
Property, Tassajara Road, Dublin California" prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical
Consultants in August 1999. This document is incorporated by reference into this
Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community Development
Department during normal business hours.
This geotechnical report notes that the Project site does not lie within an Earthquake
Fault Zone area as identified by the State of California (formerly known as an Alquist
Priolo Special Study Zone). The risk of ground rupture from active faulting is
considered low.
The Sorrento East Project site is underlain by alluvial (stream) deposits consisting of a
mix of clay material, clayey silt and sand. This type of soil is considered expansive,
with a potentially high degree of swell when wet and a high degree of shrinkage when
dry.
The geotechnical report did not identify the presence of liquefaction on the site, since
soil conditions are not susceptible to this type of soil hazard. Liquefaction is the
City of Dublin Page 49
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
temporary transformation of saturated soil to a viscous liquid state during strong
seismic activity. The result of liquefaction is moderate to severe damage to building
foundations, roads and other improvements.
The risk of landslide and mudflows is considered low since site topography and the
topography of surrounding areas contain generally rolling hillsides with minimal risk
of landslide.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed a number of impacts and contains
mitigation measures to reduce anticipated soils, geologic ad seismic impacts to a less-
than-significant level. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include:
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/1.0 reduced impacts related to primary effects of
earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.6/B) but not to a less-than-significant level.
This mitigation measure requires that structure and infrastructure facilities be
designed to applicable local and state building codes.
Mitigation Measures 3.9/2.0-7.0 reduced impacts related to the secondary effects
of earthquake ground shaking (IM 3.9/C) to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation measures mandate building setbacks from landslides, stabilization of
unstable land forms, removal and reconstruction of unstable soils, use of
engineered retaining structures, use of appropriately designed and engineered
fill, design of structures to account of potential soil failure and preparation of
design-level geotechnical studies.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/9.0-10.0 reduced impacts related to substantial
alteration to landforms to a less-than significant level (IM 3.6/D). Mitigations
require minimal grading plans with minimal cuts and fills and careful siting of
homes and improvements to avoid excessive grading.
• Mitigation Measures 3.6/14.0-16.0 reduced impacts related to expansive soils (IM
3.6 / H) to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures require formulation
of site-specific designs to overcome expansive soils, reducing the amount of
moisture in the soil and by appropriate foundation and pavement design.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6 / 27.0 reduced the impact related to short-term
construction-related erosion and sedimentation (IM 3.6 / K) to a less-than-
significant level. This measure includes limiting timing of construction to avoid
the rainy season and implementing a number of other specific erosion control
measures.
• Mitigation Measure 3.6/28.0 reduced the impact related to long-term erosion and
sedimentation (IM 3.6 / L) to a less-than-significant level. This measure includes
installation of erosion control facilities into individual development projects,
City of Dublin Page 50
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
including sediment catch basins, creek bank stabilization, revegetation of graded
areas and similar measures.
200 MND. The 2000 MND did not identify new or supplemental impacts or mitigation
measures related to soils or geotechnical issues.
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. Although the Project is not located within an Earthquake Fault
Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Zone), the Eastern Dublin EIR identified that the
primary and secondary effects of ground shaking (Impacts 3.6 / B and 3.6 / C)
could be potentially significant impacts. With implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.6/ 1.0 and adherence to the California Building Code, there would be
no impacts related to primary effects of groundshaking beyond those analyzed in
previous environmental documents. This mitigation measure will be
implemented by the City of Dublin Building Division prior to issuance of
building permits for this Project.
Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 2.0 through 3.6 / 7.0 contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR
will be implemented to reduce the secondary effects of seismic ground shaking
on proposed Project improvements.
Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to exposure of people or
structures not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND is anticipated
and no additional analysis is required.
The above mitigation measures will continue to apply to the Sorrento East
Project.
The Dublin City Council included Impact 3.6/B from the Eastern Dublin EIR in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations when approving the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan. This impact found that primary effects of earthquake ground
shaking within the Eastern Dublin area as a significant impact even after
mitigation.
b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Construction of
the proposed improvements on the Project site would modify the existing
ground surface to allow for the proposed development Project and alter patterns
of surface runoff and infiltration and could result in a short-term increase in
erosion and sedimentation caused by grading activities. Impacts 3.6/K and L
addressed construction and long-term erosion and sedimentation impacts.
Adherence to Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures 3.6/27.0 and 28.0 will
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The developer of this Project
will also be required to comply with provisions of the Alameda County Clean
Water Program to reduce short-term and long-term operational runoff from the
Project site. These provisions require approval of a Stormwater Pollution
City of Dublin Page 51
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to commencement of site grading and adherence
to Best Management Practices during the operational phase of the Project. Best
Management Practices typically include installation of silt fences, desilting basins
and similar features. Consistency with these erosion control requirements will be
made conditions of Project approval by the Dublin Public Works Department as
is normally and customarily done during the development review process.
With adherence to the above mitigation measures and requirements, no new or
more severe erosion impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR.
c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral
spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? NI. Portions of the Project site are
underlain by soil types with high shrink-swell potential, which have the
potential to cause damage to foundations, slabs, and pavement (Eastern Dublin
EIR Impact 3.6 / H). With adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.6 / 14.0 through 16.0
contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, there would be no significant shrink-swell
impacts beyond those previously identified. These measures require project
developers to use appropriately designed building foundations and to use other
construction techniques to reduce shrink-swell, such as moisture conditioning
prior to construction and installation of appropriate surface and subsurface
drainage.
Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to soil hazards than analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR or other site-specific CEQA documents are anticipated
and no additional analysis is needed.
e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI.
Proposed development on the Project 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 issues of hazards and hazardous materials was not addressed in the 1993 Eastern
Dublin EIR. However, this topic was addressed in the 2000 MND and was found to be
less-than-significant based on a site-specific Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment prepared by Berlogar Associates dated September 25, 1997 for the Dublin
Ranch portion of the Eastern Dublin planning area. This report is incorporated by
reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the Dublin Community
Development Department during normal business hours. The Berlogar report
concluded that no obvious potentially hazardous materials were observed based on soil
sampling. Similarly, no detectable levels of pesticide or herbicide contamination was
encountered.
City of Dublin Page 52
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
The 1997 report was updated by ENGEO in a report dated June 29, 2006. This report is
also incorporated by reference into this Initial Study and is available for review at the
Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The 2006
update concludes on page 6 that "based on the scope and findings of this assessment,
no Recognized Environmental Concerns (RECs) are identified for the Property."
The Project site was not listed in environmental data bases as a hazardous site, a
hazardous materials generator, hazardous materials transporter or a site containing
underground storage tanks.
The Project site is located within both the General Referral Area and the Height Referral
Area of Livermore Municipal Airport, now known as the Airport Influence Area (AIA).
Previous CEOA document
The 2000 MND referenced the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
documents completed in 1997 that found no significant amounts of hazardous materials
on Planning Area F.
Project Impacts
a-c) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use or disposal of hazardous materials, through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidental
release of hazardous materials or emit or handle hazardous materials, substances or wastes
within a quarter mile radius of a school? NI. The 2000 MND found that the potential to
create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials was less-than-significant since
proposed land uses on the site would include minor and less-than-significant
quantities of potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored on the site.
These would typically include landscape maintenance products, paints, solvents
building repair products and similar normal and customary materials. The
construction of a residential development on the site would not change the use or
storage of these materials. No changes to conditions on the site have occurred since
2000 with regard to hazardous materials.
Although an elementary school site exists just east of but outside the Project site,
none of the planned uses would result in significant impacts with respect to the
use, storage or transport of significant amounts of hazardous material that could
impact the planned public school. Therefore, no new impacts related to hazardous
materials beyond those analyzed in the 2000 MND are anticipated.
d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. No properties comprising the Project
site are listed on the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as
an identified hazardous site as of December 14, 2009. There is therefore no impact
with regard to this topic and no additional analysis is needed.
e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? LS.
The 2000 MND noted that the Project site is located northwest of Livermore
Municipal Airport. The Eastern Dublin EIR also notes that the site is within the
City of Dublin Page 53
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Airport Referral Area for Livermore Airport. Proposed building heights within the
proposed Project would not exceed typical heights of surrounding buildings
constructed in this area of the Eastern Dublin Planning Area. As required by the
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and the Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, development plans for this site will be referred to the Alameda County
Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the Airport
Land Use Policy Plan prior to issuance of a building permit. No new or more
significant impacts with regard to airport safety beyond those analyzed in
previous CEQA documents are anticipated.
g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. The proposed Project would
include the construction of a residential development on private land. The City's
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, which provides for emergency
evacuation procedures, would not be affected since no roadways that could be
used for emergency evacuation would be blocked or otherwise impeded. The
Project would also provide access to emergency vehicles as well as pedestrian and
vehicle exits from the site for emergency egress. 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 Eastern
Dublin EIR identified mitigation measures for impacts to fire services generally as
well as in high fire hazard open space areas (Impacts 3.4/C and E). With
adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR, no new
impacts related to wildland fire would result. Mitigation Measures 3.4 / 6.0 to 13.0
require measures such as requiring project developers to assist in funding new fire
stations, requiring use of non-combustible roof materials, maintaining water fire
flow and pressure, establishing low-fuel buffers between structures and wildland
areas and installing fire sprinklers in buildings. These requirements will be made
conditions of approval for the proposed Project, as appropriate. Therefore, no new
or more severe significant impacts are anticipated that were not analyzed in earlier
CEQA documents and no additional analysis is needed.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Setting
Local surface water
The Project site is located within the Arroyo Las Positas watershed, a sub-basin of the
Alameda Creek watershed. This watershed drains westerly into and through the
Arroyo Mocho to the Arroyo de la Laguna, which discharges into Alameda Creek near
Sunol and ultimately into San Francisco Bay near Union City.
The Project area is located within the jurisdiction of Zone 7 of the Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance
of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County.
City of Dublin Page 54
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
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.
In general, surface water quality is affected by a number of pollutants generated from
structures, parking areas and open space uses, including but not limited to
petrochemicals (oil and grease), yard and landscape chemicals (herbicides, pesticides
and fertilizers), and similar sources.
Flooding
The site lies outside of a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (see Community Panel #060011C 328G).
Previous CE OA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated hydrology and water quality impacts from implementation of the
General Plan and EDSP project. The mitigation measures applicable to this Project are:
Mitigation Measures 3.5/44.0-48.0 reduced the potentially significant impact of
flooding from increased runoff (Impact 3.5/Y). These measures require storm
drainage master planning (MM 3.5/46.0), natural channel improvements
wherever possible (MM 3.5/45.0) and that drainage facilities minimize any
increased potential for erosion or flooding (MM 3.5/44.0), and provision of
facilities to control downstream flooding (MM 3.5/47.0). The EIR found that with
City of Dublin Page 55
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
the implementation of these mitigation measures potential flooding impacts
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
• Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and 50.0 reduced the impact of reduced
groundwater recharge areas to an insignificant level (Impact 3.5 / Z). The two
mitigation measures require that facilities be planned and management practices
selected that protect and enhance water quality and that Zone 7 programs for
groundwater recharge be supported.
Mitigation Measures 3.5/51.0 -55-OA reduced the impact of non-point source
pollution into local waterways, including urban runoff, non-stormwater
discharges, subsurface drainages and construction runoff (Impact 3.5/AA). With
the implementation of mitigation measures requiring each development to
prepare project-specific water quality investigations addressing this issue, the
development of a community-based non-point-source control education program
and other requirements, this potential impact and potential cumulative impact
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND identified two additional impacts and mitigation measures
related to Hydrology and Water Quality that would be applicable to this Project.
Mitigation Measure 5 requires developers within Area F to prepare Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to reduce construction and post-construction water
quality impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 6 requires project
developers within Area F to prepare and submit drainage and hydrology studies to the
Dublin Public Works Department that summarizes historic drainage flows from the site,
estimated increases in the amount of stormwater as a result of project development and
the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate increased drainage flows.
Project Impacts
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. The issue of
water quality standards was analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR. This was Impact
3.5 / AA, non-point sources of water pollution. Water quality was also addressed in
the 2000 MND. Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-5/51.0 through
55.0 and MND Mitigation Measure 5 ensure that the Project development and
improvements shall reflect the most current water quality standards and waste
discharge requirements. No new or more severe water quality impacts beyond
those previously identified will result from the Project.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. The
Project site has been slated for future urban uses since adoption of the 1993 Eastern
Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and the site rezoning in 2000.
Impact 3.5 / Z contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR noted that the Eastern Dublin
area already has minimal recharge capabilities and that approval of the Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan could reduce the amount of undeveloped land in the region
used for groundwater recharge. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/49.0 and
50.0 would reduce this impact to a level of less-than-significant. These mitigation
City of Dublin Page 56
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
measures require local water supply agencies to plan facilities and undertake
management to protect and enhance water quality and to support Zone 7's on-
going water recharge efforts. The Eastern Dublin EIR assumed development of the
Project site, so the Project would result in no new or more severe impacts than
have been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents.
c, d) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial
siltation or erosion would occur or substantially increase surface water runoff that would
result in flooding, either on or off the project site? LS. New impervious surfaces
would be added to the site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways,
driveways and similar surfaces that precludes water infiltration and results in
stormwater runoff. Development of the site was anticipated in the Eastern
Dublin EIR and Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 44.0 through 3.5 / 48.0 were included in
the Eastern Dublin EIR to require each individual project developer in the
Eastern Dublin planning area to contribute to localized and regional drainage
facilities to accommodate increased levels of stormwater runoff, minimize
flooding and to alleviate erosion. Individual project developers are also required
to prepare a Storm Drainage Plan to investigate pre-project drainage and
hydrologic conditions and design drainage facilities to accommodate increased
runoff to minimize flooding. Storm Drain Master Plans are reviewed and
approved by the City of Dublin Public Works Department. Drainage facilities
identified in the master plans are made conditions of project approval.
No stream corridors are located on or adjacent to the Project site.
Therefore, no new or more significant impacts related to changes in drainage
patterns or increases in the amount of stormwater runoff are anticipated that
were not analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EI or the 2000 MND.
e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add
substantial amounts of polluted runoff? LS. Refer to item "c, d," above. Also see
Mitigation Measure 6 contained in the 2000 MND.
f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS. Refer to item "a," above.
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 a 100-year flood hazard zone as identified
by the FEMA flood hazard mapping. This is identified in the Environmental
Setting section of this Initial Study and no impact would result with regard to this
topic and no additional analysis is required.
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.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project site is located
well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major bodies of water that could be
impacted by a tsunami or seiche. The site and surrounding properties all have a
City of Dublin Page 57
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
gentle slope to the south, without any major hillsides or other areas that could
cause mudflows on to the site. Therefore, this no impact would result regarding
this impact.
9. Land Use and Planning
Environmental Setting
Existing land uses
The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no habitable structures.
Regulatory setting
Land use on the Project site is regulated by the General Plan and Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan (EDSP). The General Plan and EDSP designate the Project site as a
combination of "Medium Density Residential" and "Neighborhood Park." Existing
land use entitlements on the Project site allows construction of up to 694 dwelling units
as well as a 5.2 net acre neighborhood park and two private recreational facilities. The
Applicant has requested amendment to these existing entitlements that would allow a
decrease in the number of units by 113. A 5.1 net acre Neighborhood Park and a
community recreational facility are included in the amended request. Requested land
use entitlements also include vesting tentative subdivision maps and an amended
Development Agreement.
Project Impacts
a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project site is located within a
largely urbanized area of Eastern Dublin and adjacent to the Sorrento West
residential development. The proposed Project would represent a continuation of
the medium density residential development pattern established in the vicinity.
Based on existing and planned land uses in the Project vicinity, no established
communities would be disrupted and no new impacts would result that have not
been identified in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No additional analysis
is required regarding this topic.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The Project
applicant has submitted an application to amend existing land use entitlements on
the site. The applicant will be required to comply with all other land use policies
and regulations as a condition of Project approval. No changes are proposed to the
Dublin General Plan or Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI.
The Project site is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural
community conservation plan area. There are no impacts with regard to this
Project and no additional analysis is required.
City of Dublin Page 58
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
10. Mineral Resources
Environmental Setting
Neither the General Plan, the EDSP, the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND identify
the presence of significant mineral resources on the site.
Project Impacts
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI.
None of the City of Dublin land use regulatory documents or applicable
environmental reviews indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist on the
Project site, 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 Dublin 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 6. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels)
Land Use Normally
Acceptable Conditionally
Acceptable Normally
Unacceptable Clearly
Unacceptable
Residential 60 or less 60-70 70-75 75+
Lodging Facilities 60-70 70-80 80+ --
Schools, churches,
nursing 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
City of Dublin Page 59
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential
dwellings.
The Eastern Dublin EIR notes that major noise sources within Eastern Dublin include
traffic noise from arterial roadways, helicopter over flights from Camp Parks RFTA
west of Tassajara Road, noise generated by development of land uses under the Specific
Plan and General Plan and construction noise. No specific significant future noise
sources are identified adjacent to the Project area.
Local noise sources. The Project site is bound by Gleason Drive to the north and Central
Parkway to the south. These two arterials will be the primary sources of traffic noise
that could potentially impact the onsite noise environment. Secondary sources include
Grafton Street, Lockhart Street, and a few internal collectors. Interstate 580, located
approximately 2500 feet south of Central Parkway, may also add to the nighttime noise
environment.
Another noise source that may be heard onsite includes occasional aircraft flyovers
from the Livermore Municipal airport. The Project site lies within the Airport Influence
Area (AIA) of the Livermore Municipal Airport However, the airport noise contours do
not come close to the Project site.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR contains a number of mitigation measures
to reduce anticipated noise impacts from the General Plan and EDSP project. These
include:
Mitigation Measures 3.10/ 1.0 would reduce impacts related to exposure of
proposed housing to future roadway noise (IM 3-10/ A) to a less-than-significant
level. This mitigation measure requires that all future development projects have
an acoustic analysis prepared to ensure that future dwelling units meet City
noise exposure levels.
• Mitigation Measures 3.10/4.0 and 5.0 would reduce impacts related to
construction noise (IM 10/E) to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures require developers to submit construction noise management plans
and to limit hours of construction operations.
No additional noise impacts or mitigation measures were identified in the 2000 MND.
The proposed Project will be required to comply with applicable noise mitigation
measures contained in the previous CEQA documents.
Project Impacts
a,c) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established by the General Plan or other applicable standard and result in substantial
increases in permanent in ambient noise levels? LS. As development proceeds, the
City of Dublin Page 60
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
roadways would generate increased noise levels at the Project site from increased
vehicle trips associated with the Project as well as operational noise, including but
not limited to mechanical equipment, normal outdoor activities associated with a
residential project and similar sources. Potential noise impacts of this Project were
assessed in Chapter 3.10 of the Eastern Dublin EIR, Noise, as well as Section 11 of
the 2000 MND. The proposed Project includes the general type of land uses
included on this site in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
As identified in the above section, potential noise impacts addressed in the 1993
Eastern Dublin EIR included exposure of future housing to roadway noise (IM
3.10/A). As required by Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.10/1, the
Project Developer submitted a detailed site specific acoustic analysis that
recommends inclusion of a number of noise reduction construction techniques
into the Sorrento East Project, including but not limited to installation of fences
and walls at specific locations within the project and installation of noise barriers
for outdoor balconies. With adherence to these noise reduction methods, which
have been included in the Project, there would be no new or more severe impacts
related to generation of noise levels above City noise standards beyond those
assessed in previous CEQA documents.
b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? LS.
The topic of significant groundborne vibration was not addressed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR. The 2000 MND found no anticipated impacts since no sources of
vibration such as heavy industrial facilities or railroads exist in the area. The
proposed Project would include land uses typically found in the Eastern Dublin
and would be constructed using normal and customary techniques that would not
require pile driving or similar methods. No new or more severe impacts related to
groundbourne impacts have been identified than were analyzed in the 2000 MND.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels without the project? NI. The proposed Project is required to adhere to
construction noise mitigation measures included in the Eastern Dublin EIR to
minimize the impacts of construction noise. These are Mitigation Measures
3.10/4.0 and 5.0, which require all project developers in the Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan area to prepare and adhere to Construction Noise Management
Programs, which require limiting grading and other noise generating activities to
the shortest period of time as possible, minimizing truck access through residential
areas and limiting the hours and days of construction activities. With adherence to
these measures, no supplemental impact would result regarding construction
noise. No new or more significant impacts are anticipated with regard to
construction noise impacts and no additional analysis is needed.
e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the project expose people to
excessive noise levels? LS. The Project site is located within the Livermore Municipal
Airport Influence Area (AIA). The City of Dublin staff is required to refer this
Project to the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission to ensure
consistency with the Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan. A condition of
City of Dublin Page 61
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Project approval will require that that building interior spaces shall comply with
City and state noise level requirements.
12. Population and Housing
Environmental Setting
The Project site is currently vacant and contains no dwellings.
Project Impacts
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The
Project site has been planned for Medium Density and other land uses since
adoption of the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in
1993. The Eastern Dublin EIR analyzed the growth inducing impact (Impact 3.5/T)
related to providing water service to the Eastern Dublin area. The configuration of
uses on the site and surrounding areas was slightly modified in 2000 and in 2004
as identified in the Project Description section of this Initial Study. The current
proposal would result in construction of a decrease of 113 dwellings from existing
City land use approvals. This impact would therefore be less-than-significant.
b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI.
The Project site currently contains no dwelling units and no impact would result
with regard to displacement of dwellings or population on the site. No additional
analysis is needed regarding this topic.
13. Public Services
Environmental Setting
The following provide essential services to the Project site:
• Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County
Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency
medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and
hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station 18, located northeast
of the Project site at 4800 Fallon Road.
• Police Protection. Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin
Police Services Department.
• Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational
services for properties in the Eastern Dublin area.
• Library Service. Alameda County Library service. The Dublin branch library
is located in the Dublin civic center complex.
City of Dublin Page 62
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
• Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities
are the responsibility of the City of Dublin.
Previous CEQA documents
Applicable mitigation measures contained in Eastern Dublin EIR addressing fire and
police protection include:
Impacts 3.4/ A and B identified a potentially significant impact with police
services demand and accessibility to the Eastern Dublin area. This impact was
reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.4/1.0 that provides additional personnel and facilities and revision to police
beats as necessary in order to establish and maintain City standards for police
protection service in Eastern Dublin.
• Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0 also reduces impacts to the Police
Department by requiring incorporation of safety requirements into the
requirements of future development projects, appropriate budgeting of police
services by the City and police review of individual development projects in
the Eastern Dublin area.
Impacts 3.4/ C identified a potentially significant impact with regard to
increased demand for fire services in Eastern Dublin. This impact was
reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure
3.4/6.0 through 11.0. These measures require the timing of facilities to
coincide with new serve demand from development, establishment of
appropriate funding mechanisms to cover up-front costs of capital fire
improvements, acquisition of future fire stations in Eastern Dublin, and
incorporation of Fire Department safety recommendations into the design of
all future individual development projects in Eastern Dublin.
2000 MND. No additional public service impacts or mitigation measures were identified
in the 2000.
The proposed Project is required to adhere to the above mitigation measures.
Project Impacts
a) Fire protection? LS. Approval of the proposed project and construction of
residential development on the site would increase the number of fire and
emergency medical calls for service that would need to be responded to by the
Alameda County Fire Department, the City of Dublin's contract fire department.
The proposed development is required to adhere to existing mitigation measures
identified above, including payment of public facility impact fees to assist in
funding new fire stations (Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/7.0), These
impacts were analyzed and mitigated in the Eastern Dublin EIR and no further
site-specific impacts were identified in he 2000 MND.
City of Dublin Page 63
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Consistent with Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measure 3.4/9.0, proposed
development on the Project site will be conditioned to meet Fire Department
requirements including but not limited to maintaining minimum water pressure
and fire flow, providing adequate site access and using fire retardant building
materials. No new or more severe impacts related to fire protection not analyzed
in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND is anticipated for the proposed
Project.
b) Police protection? LS. Similar to fire protection, there would be an increase in
police calls for service with development of the Project site (see Eastern Dublin
EIR Impacts 3.4/A and B), Mitigation Measures included in the Eastern Dublin
EIR paying City of Dublin public facility impact fees to assist in funding new
police facilities (Mitigation Measure 3.4/1.0) incorporating Police Department
safety and security requirements into the proposed Project, including but not
limited to adequate locking devices, lighting and ensuring adequate surveillance
for structures and parking areas (Mitigation Measures 3.4/3.0-5.0). No new or
more severe impacts related to police protection not analyzed in the Eastern
Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND is anticipated for the proposed Project.
c) Schools? NI. No impacts to school service would result should the proposed Project
be approved since payment of mandated statutory impact fees at the time of
issuance of building permits will provide mitigation of educational impacts
pursuant to CEQA. An Elementary School site is located east of the Project site,
however, approval and construction of this school is not part of this Project.
d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? LS. The 2000
MND identified maintenance of public facilities as a less than significant impact
for future development of Area F. Maintenance of public facilities would continue
to be provided by the City of Dublin. New public facilities will be required to be
designed to meet City of Dublin standards, so that long-term maintenance is not
anticipated to result in any new or more severe significant impacts than analyzed
in previous environmental documents. The Project developer will be required to
pay Public Facilities Fees to the City of Dublin to assist in constructing new and
upgraded public infrastructure to support the proposed Project.
The Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.4/0 (demand for utility extensions)
and 3.4/S (consumption of non-renewable natural resources) as significant and
unavoidable impacts when approving the Eastern Dublin project.
e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 "f" and "g," below.
14. Recreation
Environmental Settine
The City of Dublin offers a range of park, recreation and cultural services. The nearest
City of Dublin community park to the project area is Emerald Glen Park, located on the
City of Dublin Page 64
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
southwest corner of Tassajara Road and Gleason Drive, west of the Project site. Emerald
Glen Park provides a wide range of recreation and open space amenities for Dublin
residents. The City of Dublin also maintains a large number of other park and
recreational facilities within the community and offers an extensive recreation program
to residents.
The Fallon Sports Park is currently under construction east of the Project site. When
completed, this facility will contain 60 acres of various sports fields and other
recreational facilities.
The City of Dublin operates a 2.4-acre Neighborhood Square within the Sorrento West
development immediately west of the Project site, which is the closest Neighborhood
Park or Square to the Sorrento East site. A Neighborhood Square is a smaller park in
more urban areas of the community where adequate space may not be available for a
normal park.
The Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan identify a 5.6-acre (gross)
Neighborhood Park in the approximate center of the Project site. The EDSP also
identifies a future Community Park/ Sports Park the northwest corner of Fallon Road
and Dublin Boulevard, just east of the Project site. This is the Fallon Sports Grounds
with Phase 1 development scheduled for Spring, 2010. This facility will contain in
excess of 60 acres of land at full buildout.
These parks will be constructed from a combination of City public facilities impact fees
and developer dedications of land at the time development on adjacent properties
occur.
Regional park facilities are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District, which
maintains a large number of regional parks, trails and similar recreation facilities in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? LS.
Approval and construction of the proposed Project would increase the use of
nearby City and regional recreational facilities, since it would include increasing
the on-site permanent population on the site. The impacts of development were
addressed in the Eastern Dublin EIR as Impacts 3.4/K, L, M and N., the Project
applicants are required to comply with related Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation
measures, including payment of public facilities fees to assist the City to purchase
and/or improve parks throughout the community that could be used by Project
residents. No additional impacts were identified in the 2000 MND. No new or more
severe impacts with regard to use of recreation facilities would result than have
been previously analyzed in other CEQA documents.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational
facilities? LS. See item "a." Proposed development on the Sorrento East site does
provide for a future 5.6-acre (gross) Neighborhood Park and will be subject to
City of Dublin Page 65
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Eastern Dublin EIR mitigation measures. There are no new or more severe
significant impacts related to provision of recreational facilities than have been
previously analyzed.
15. Transportation/Traffic
Environmental Setting
Arterial roadways serving the Project site include Central Parkway that forms the
southern boundary of the Project site and Gleason Drive that forms the northern
boundary. Both Central Parkway and Gleason Drive connect with north-south arterial
roads Tassajara Road to the west and Fallon Road to the east. Both Tassajara Road and
Fallon Road intersect with the I-580 freeway, to the south. The I-680 freeway provides
north-south regional transportation west of the Project site.
Public transit service to Dublin and surrounding Tri-Valley cities is provided by
WHEELS bus service, operated by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority
(LAVTA).
The Dublin Pleasanton BART station is located west of the Project site. The West Dublin
BART station is under construction west of the I-680 freeway.
Pedestrian access in the Project area is provided by sidewalks located within public or
private rights-of-way of nearby streets.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR. The Eastern Dublin EIR including the following impacts and
mitigation measures related to transportation and circulation.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/1.0 and 3-3/4.0 were adopted which reduced impacts
on I-580 between Tassajara Road and Fallon Road and on I-680 north of I-580 to a
level of insignificance (Impact 3.3/A and D).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/2.0, 2.1, 3.0 and 5.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
the remaining I-580 freeway segments and the I-580 / 680 interchange (Impacts
3.3/B, C and E). Even with mitigations, however, significant cumulative impacts
remained on I-580 freeway segments between I-680 and Dougherty Road and, at
the build-out scenario of 2010, on other segments of I-580 (Impact 3.3/B and E).
Mitigation Measures 3.3 / 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 and 12.0 were adopted to reduce impacts
to the Dougherty Road/Dublin Boulevard, Hacienda Drive/I-580 Eastbound
Freeway Ramps, Tassajara Road I-580 Westbound Freeway Ramps, Airway
Boulevard/ Dublin Boulevard intersections and along El Charro Road to a level
of insignificance. These mitigations include construction of additional lanes at
intersections, coordination with Caltrans and the neighboring cities of Pleasanton
and Livermore to restripe, widen or modify on-ramps and off-ramps and
City of Dublin Page 66
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
interchange intersections, and coordination with Caltrans to modify certain
interchanges. Development projects within the Eastern Dublin project area are
also required to contribute a proportionate share to the multi-jurisdictional
improvements through the Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee program and the
Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee program (Impacts 3.6 / F, H, J and L).
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/13.0 and 14.0 were adopted to reduce impacts on
identified intersections with Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road (Impact
3.3/M and N). The identified improvements reduced Tassajara Road impacts to
less than significant but Dublin Boulevard impacts remained significant and
unavoidable due to road widening limitations.
• Mitigation Measures 3.3/15.0,15.3 and 16.0 and 16.1 generally require
coordination with transit providers to extend transit services and coincide
pedestrian and bicycle paths with signals at major street crossings (Impact 33/0
and P).
2000 MND. The 2000 MND contains Mitigation Measure 7 that includes installation of a
number of transportation and circulation improvements at Iron Horse Parkway/ Dublin
Blvd., Dougherty Rd. /Dublin Blvd., Hacienda Dr. / The Boulevard, Tassajara Rd/ I-
580WB ramps, Santa Rita Rd. / I-580 EB ramps, Hacienda Dr. / I-580 EB ramps, Santa Rira
Rd. / I-580 EB ramps, Tassajara Rd. / Dublin Blvd, and Tassajara Rd. / I-580 WB ramps .
Mitigation Measure 8 requires the developers of projects within Area F to participate in
widening Tassajara Road between I-580 and Dublin Boulevard from six to eight lanes.
All mitigation measures adopted upon approval of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan EIR
and 2000 MND shall apply to the proposed Project.
Project Impacts
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity?
LS. The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads
and streets. Based on the following trip generation table (Table 8), the proposed
Project would add a total of 5,140 daily trips, with 414 trips occurring in the a.m.
peak and 511 trips occurring in the p.m. peak periods at project buildout.
City of Dublin Page 67
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Table 8. Project Trip Generation,
Approved v. Proposed Stage 1 Development Plans
Land Use
(ITE Code) No. units Average Trip Rate Number of Trips
AM PM Dail AM PM Dail
Approved Plan
Single Family (210) 75 0.83 1.08 10.64 .62 81 798
Low-rise
condo/ townhouse (231) 619 0.67 0.78 5.08 415 483 3141
Total 694 477 564 3939
Proposed Project
Single Family (210) 513 0.72 0.89 9.12 369 458 4680
Low-rise
condo/townhouse (231) 68 0.67 0.78 6.76 46 53 460
Total 581 414 511 5140
Difference -113 -63 -53 +1200
Source: City of Dublin, 2009
The proposed Project would add additional traffic to local and regional roads;
however the number of a.m.. peak trips would be an estimated 63 less than
previously analyzed in other CEQA documents and the number of p.m. peak trips
would be 53 fewer that previously analyzed. Although the overall number of daily
trips is expected to increase by approximately 1,200, the number of a.m. and p.m.
peak trips, which is when the most traffic congestion occurs, is anticipated to
decrease. Thus, the effects of Project-related trips would be less significant
compared to the currently approved Sorrento East Project.
Traffic and circulation impacts of constructing residences and similar uses on the
Project site was analyzed in both the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND.
The 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR determined that Impact 3.3/B (I-580 Freeway, I-680-
Hacienda) and Impact 3.3 C (I-580 Freeway, Tassajara-Fallon-Airway) could not be
mitigated to an insignificant level and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similarly, Impacts 3.3/E, (cumulative freeway impacts) and 3.3/I (Santa Rita
Road / I-580 Freeway eastbound ramps) and Impact 3.3 / M (cumulative impacts on
Dublin Boulevard) were found to be significant and unavoidable. These significant
and unavoidable impacts would also result with implementation of this Project.
The Project developer will be required to pay Eastern Dublin Transportation
Improvement Fees to pay the development's fair share of constructing local and
regional transportation improvements.
No new or more severe impacts with respect to increases in local or regional traffic
are anticipated with this Project that have not been previously analyzed.
City of Dublin Page 68
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County
CMA for designated roads)? LS. The proposed Project would not increase p.m. peak
hour trips or more as compared with the currently approved Project. Thus there
would be no significant impact on either CMP routes or MTS Routes of Regional
Significance.
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.
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 EDSP and the Dublin Municipal Code contain 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. Approval and construction of the
proposed Project would not include any barriers or impedances to local or city-
wide emergency evacuation routes as required by the City of Dublin
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan so no impact would result
regarding this topic.
f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. The amount of parking proposed on the Project site
would meet or exceed the City of Dublin's on-site parking requirement; therefore,
no impact is anticipated with regard to this topic.
g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The proposed Project would
include construction of sidewalks on adjacent street frontages to facilitate
pedestrian access. Bicyclists could use adjacent roads to access parks, the BART
station and shopping areas near the site, so that no impacts to this topic would
result.
16. Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Setting
Watewater service. The Eastern Dublin EIR examined wastewater collection, treatment,
and disposal issues for the Project area. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)
was identified as the future provider of collection and treatment services for the Project
area with disposal provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management
Agency (LAVWMA), a joint powers authority composed of Livermore, Pleasanton and
DSRSD. LAVWMA operates a pipeline that carries treated wastewater over the Dublin
grade and into East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA) facilities for eventual discharge
City of Dublin Page 69
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
into San Francisco Bay.
Wastewater collection system. DSRSD owns and maintains a system of underground
sewer mains throughout its service area, including Dublin. A 30-inch diameter sewer
line currently exists within Dublin Boulevard just south of the Project site.
Wastewater treatment. Wastewater is collected as described above and conveyed to the
District's Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP) located south of Stoneridge Drive in
Pleasanton. The WWTP also treats wastewater from the City of Pleasanton.
DSRSD recently completed the first stage of its planned expansion to serve additional
growth in its service area. This expansion added 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of
average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity to the treatment plant for a total of 17.0
mgd ADWF. Recent flows into the WWTP as of June, 2008, was approximately 10.7
mgd (Stan Kolodzie, DSRSD, 7/08).
Wastewater disposal. Disposal of treated wastewater generated by the proposed Project is
the responsibility of LAVWMA (Livermore-Amador Valley Waste Management
Authority). This joint powers agency, was created in 1974 by the cities of Livermore and
Pleasanton, and the DSRSD. Effluent from the wastewater treatment plants operated by
the City of Livermore and DSRSD is conveyed to LAVWMA regulating reservoirs in
Pleasanton and then via a 16-mile export pipeline to the East Bay Dischargers Authority
(EBDA) pipeline in San Leandro. The EBDA pipeline conveys the effluent for ultimate
discharge to San Francisco Bay.
Water service. Water supply and distribution impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5,
Sewer, Water, and Storm Drainage, of the Eastern Dublin EIR. This Initial Study -
analyzes the Project's impacts when evaluated against earlier analyses, including the
2000 MND.
Water demand and supply. The City of Dublin is supplied by water provided by the
Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), headquartered in Dublin. DSRSD owns
and operates a water distribution system, including transmission lines, pump stations
and water turnouts. DSRSD obtains water from Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, which is discussed below. DSRSD was formed
in 1953, formerly known as the Valley Community Services District.
Treated water is supplied to DSRSD by Zone 7 from various turnouts in the Dublin
area. Water received from the turnouts is distributed throughout Dublin via a grid of
underground water transmission lines, delivering water to residences, businesses and
other customers within the District's service area.
The District also provides recycled (reclaimed) water for irrigation and other non-
potable uses. DSRSD Ordinance No. 280 requires recycled water use for approved
customer categories for all new land uses, including commercial, multi-family
residential and institutional irrigation uses within the DSRSD potable water service
area. New development within the Eastern Dublin area has been required to install
City of Dublin Page 70
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
dual water systems. A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Ord. No. 980) has also
been adopted by DSRSD to minimize use of irrigation water.
DSRSD and Zone 7 are responsible for planning to supply sufficient water to
meet the anticipated growth in demand. DSRSD plans to use a combination of
potable and recycled water supplies as well as conservation of water resources.
The wholesale supplier of water to DSRSD is Zone 7. Zone 7 relies on a combination of
supplies to meet retail water needs. Existing water sources include:
State Water Project (SWP) Supplies: In a typical year, Zone 7 gets approximately
70 to 80 percent of its water supply from water conveyed through the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta by the State Water Project. Zone 7 has a 75-year
contract with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to receive
water from the State Water Project (SWP). The entitlement under this contract is
80,619 acre-feet annually. SWP water is delivered to Zone 7 from the Feather
River Watershed via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This water is then
transported to Zone 7 through the California Aqueduct to the South Bay
Aqueduct and Lake Del Valle. Water enters the Zone 7 system from the South
Bay Aqueduct and from Lake Del Valle at two Zone 7 treatment plants: the
Patterson Pass Treatment Plant and the Del Valle Water Treatment Plant.
Zone 7 reached its full entitlement of 46,000 acre-feet per year in 1997. To meet
anticipated demand, Zone 7 has acquired additional entitlements from other
water agencies equal to 34,619 acre-feet annually. With regard to all of these SWP
entitlements, actual water deliveries vary, depending on hydrologic conditions,
requests by other contractors, delivery capacity and environmental /regulatory
requirements.
Historically, for planning purposes Zone 7 anticipated a long-term annual
average delivery of 75.6% of its entitlement. Recently, however, SWP water
deliveries have been restricted by a short-term federal court order restricting
Delta pumping, which is designed to protect the Delta Smelt, an endangered
species, and additional species-related restrictions on the State Water Project's
ability to deliver water from the Delta are possible. Zone 7 now anticipates a
long-term annual average delivery to be approximately 667o of its entitlements.
Byron-Bethany Irrigation District: Since 1994, Zone 7 has been receiving water
via a short-term water transfer from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Zone 7
has made arrangements with this District to make this a long-term (15) year
arrangement. The agreement calls for delivery of 2,000 acre- feet per year. As
this water supply is delivered through the South Bay Aqueduct via the Delta, it
could potentially be impacted by court and regulatory restrictions on Delta
pumping.
Local Surface Water: Lake Del Valle is a local storage reservoir operated as part
of the SWP. However, Zone 7 has rights to 50 percent of the runoff from the
City of Dublin Page 71
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
lake's watershed after accounting for prior tights. Zone 7 staff estimates that
approximately 7,400 to 11,450 acre-feet is available, but could change in the
future.
Local Groundwater: Zone 7 and DSRSD use the local underground aquifer basin
as a storage facility for imported water. The aquifer is also naturally recharged
by rainwater falling in the watershed area. It is estimated that current natural
sustainable yield is 13.400 acre-feet of water per year. DSRSD doe not have wells.
Instead, the District has a groundwater pumping quota of 645 acre-feet that is
pumped by Zone 7 on behalf of DSRSD.
Although the restrictions on SWP deliveries from the Delta have created significant
uncertainties about future water supplies, DSRSD and Zone 7 indicate that Zone 7
has sufficient supplies to serve projected demand through 2015. In the meantime, as a
substantial portion of the State's water supplies are derived from the Delta, various
state and federal efforts are underway to ensure that water deliveries from the Delta
are maintained while at the same time protecting species that rely on the Delta.
These efforts include near-term (or interim) projects, such as the Franks Tract Project,
which would install a physical barrier in the Delta that would serve to reduce the
impact of pumping on Delta Smelt, and long-term projects, such as the construction
of dual- or isolated-conveyance system. Such a dual- or isolated-conveyance system
would involve the construction of a canal between an intake at the Sacramento River
upstream of the Delta and the SWP pumps at the southern end of the Delta, which
would allow SWP water to be conveyed separately from the Delta.
Ultimately, if future water supplies prove insufficient to meet demand, Zone 7 and
DSRSD are exploring a number of alternatives to either reduce demand or increase
supply sufficiently to meet projected demand through buildout of their constituent
agencies' general plans. These alternatives include:
Zone 7 acquiring additional SWP entitlements from other water agencies.
Zone 7 altering its 100% Reliability Policy, which requires Zone 7 to have
adequate supplies available to meet 1007o of customer demand through
conditions selected by Zone 7 staff.
Permanent conservation, such as replacing existing potable-water landscape
irrigation systems with recycled water systems and retrofitting existing
structures with water conserving fixtures. Offsetting existing demand would
free up water- supplies for future demand.
Both DSRSD and Zone 7 have adopted contingency plans for water cutbacks in the
event of a drought.
Zone 7 and DSRSD currently charge-connection and other fees on new development
within the District's service area. Fees are used for construction of planned water
City of Dublin Page 72
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
system capital improvements including storage, pumping, transmission and on-
going system water maintenance and improvements.
Previous CEQA documents
Eastern Dublin EIR In terms of water resources, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified
overdraft of groundwater resources (Impact 3.5/P) as a potentially significant impact
Adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/24.0 and 25.0 would reduce this impact to a level
of insignificant. These measures require the City of Dublin to coordinate with DSRSD to
develop recycled water resources and otherwise carefully use water resources and that
all new development in the Eastern Dublin project area connect to the DSRSD water
system. Impact 3.5/Q identified an increase in water demand as a potentially significant
impact, but this impact could be mitigated to an insignificant level based on
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0-31.0. These mitigation measures
require implementation of water conservation measures in individual development
projects and construction of new system-wide water improvements which are funded
by development impact fees. Another related impact identified in the Eastern Dublin
EIR is the need for additional water treatment plant capacity (Impact 3.5 / R). This
impact was identified as being reduced to a level of insignificance through the
implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0-33.0, which requires improvement to
the Zone 7 water system.
Impact 3.5/S (lack of a water distribution system) was identified as a potentially
significant impact in the Eastern Dublin EIR, but this impact has been reduced to an
insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 34.0-38.0. These
mitigations require upgrades to the project area water system and provision of a "will
serve" letter prior to issuance of a grading permit. Impact 3.5/T identified a potentially
significant impact related to inducement of substantial growth and concentration of
population in the project area through provision of a water distribution system. The
Eastern Dublin EIR found that this was a significant and unavoidable impact.
Regarding sewer service, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/B (lack of a
wastewater collection system) as a potentially significant impact that could be mitigated
through adherence to Mitigation Measures 3.5/1.0-5.0. These measures require DSRSD
to prepare an area-wide wastewater collection system master plan, requires all new
development to be connected to DSRSD's public sewer system, discourages on-site
wastewater treatment, requires a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD and requires that all
sewer facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards. Impact 3.5/C noted an
impact with regard to extension of a sewer trunk line with capacity to serve new
development, but could be reduced to an insignificant level since the proposed Eastern
Dublin Specific Plan sewer system has been sized to accommodate sewer demand from
the Specific Plan project only. Impact 3.5/G found that lack of wastewater disposal
capacity was a significant impact. An upgraded wastewater disposal facility is presently
being constructed by the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency to
provide adequate disposal capacity. Impact 3.5 / E identified lack of future wastewater
treatment plant capacity as a potentially significant impact, which could be reduced to
an insignificant level through adherence to Mitigation Measure 3.5 / 8.0, which requires
City of Dublin Page 73
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
that wastewater treatment and disposal be made available to meet anticipated
development in Eastern Dublin.
2000 MND. The 2000 MND addressed water and wastewater issues, and solid waste
disposal for Area F. No additional impacts or mitigation measures with respect to these
topics or utilities or service systems were included in the 2000 MND.
All mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to the proposed
Project.
Project Impacts
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB ? LS. The Project site is
located within the service area of DSRSD and the Project applicant intends to
request wastewater service from the District in order to serve the proposed Project.
Applicable mitigation measures contained in the Eastern Dublin EIR will apply to
this Project to ensure that adequate funding is supplied to DSRSD so that
wastewater facilities are consistent with wastewater discharge requirements
mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These Mitigation
Measures include 3.5 / 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 and 9.0. Since the Project would not increase the
amount of development intensity on the site greater than currently designated in
the Dublin General Plan and the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (there would
actually be a reduction in the amount of development), no new or more severe
significant impacts are anticipated with regard to exceedances of Regional Water
Quality Control Board wastewater treatment requirements. No new or more
severe impacts are anticipated beyond those analyzed in previous CEQA
documents.
b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? In
terms of wastewater facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified impacts 3.5/ A, B,
C, D, E and G associated with the planned development of the largely
undeveloped Eastern Dublin area and wastewater systems. Impact 3.5 /A cited
indirect impacts resulting from lack of a wastewater service provider to the
Eastern Dublin area. Impact 3.5/B noted lack of a wastewater collection system in
the Eastern Dublin area, Impact 3.5 / C found an impact with extension of a sewer
trunk with capacity to serve future developments in Eastern Dublin. Impacts
3.5/D and E noted lack of wastewater treatment capacity to serve proposed
development in Eastern Dublin. Impact G identified a lack of current wastewater
disposal capacity.
Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 1.0 through 9.0 and 10.0 through 14.0 were included to
reduce wastewater treatment impacts to an insignificant level by requiring
extension of a public water system to the Eastern Dublin area, requiring
wastewater collection master plans for new development projects, requiring new
development projects to be connected to a public sewer system and promoting use
of recycled water for irrigation. As noted in the Environmental Setting section, the
Project site and the remainder of Eastern Dublin has been annexed to DSRSD, so a
public wastewater system is available in the area.
City of Dublin Page 74
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
For Sorrento East Project, the developer would construct local sewer laterals and
related facilities to DSRSD specifications in order to connect to the regional DSRSD
sewer system. This is identified in the Project Description section of this Initial
Study.
With respect to wastewater treatment, Eastern Dublin EIR noted Impacts 3.5/ G
and I regarding lack of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. Eastern
Dublin Mitigation Measures 3.5/11.0 through 14.0 and 3.5/17.0 to reduce this
impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require expansion of the treated
wastewater export pipeline from Eastern Dublin, promote reuse of treated
wastewater for irrigation, require development projects to receive a will-serve
letter from DSRSD, and require engineering redundancy to minimize the risk of
pump station failure. These measures have been implemented and a larger export
pipeline was completed in 2005 under the auspices of the Livermore Amador
Valley Wastewater Treatment Authority (LAVWTA). DSRSD has commenced
construction of a recycled water system in the Eastern Dublin area. The proposed
Project will be required to connect to this system when a recycled pipeline is
constructed near the Project site.
Based on Project compliance with the above Eastern Dublin mitigation measures,
the Project developer will be required to prepare and implement a wastewater
master plan, pay necessary fees and construct local, Project-specific wastewater
facilities to DSRSD standards and specifications.
In terms of a water facilities, the Eastern Dublin EIR identified Impact 3.5/R that
cited a need for additional water treatment plant capacity and Impact S, lack of a
water distribution system. Mitigation Measures 3.5 / 32.0 and 33.0 reduced this
impact to a level of insignificance by requiring construction of new water
treatment facilities to serve planned development in the Eastern Dublin area,
including upgrades to the Del Valle Water Treatment Plan, installation of ozone
facilities, installation of a water clarifier at the Patterson Pass water treatment
plans by Zone 7 and construction of new water chlorination and fluoridation
stations at Zone 7 water turnouts. Distribution mitigation measures require water
system planning, system improvements designed and built to DSRSD standards
and for development to obtain will-serve letters from DSRSD.
The Project developer will be required to pay water fees to DSRSD to assist in
funding these and other water facility upgrades. With adherence to these
measures, no new or more severe impacts with respect to wastewater or water
facilities not previously analyzed are anticipated.
c) Require new storm drainage facilities? LS. See item 8 "e" in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section.
d) Are sufficient water supplies available?. ? LS. The Eastern Dublin EIR identified
Impacts 3.5/Q and T with respect to water supply. Impact Q cited an increase in
City of Dublin Page 75
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
water demand based on buildout of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, Impact T
noted inducement of substantial growth and population concentration in Eastern
Dublin with development of a water distribution system. The Eastern Dublin EIR
included Mitigation Measures 3.5/26.0 through 31.0 to assist in reducing the water
demand impact to a level of insignificance. These measures require water
conservation and recycling conditions on development and improvements to the
Zone 7 system. However, the Eastern Dublin EIR also identified that Impact IM
3.5/T, inducement of substantial population growth in Eastern Dublin as a result
of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, was a significant and unavoidable impact and
could not be fully mitigated. This impact was included in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations
The proposed Project will be required to meet all water system mitigation
measures set forth in the Eastern Dublin EIR to reduce water supply impacts to an
insignificant level; however, the inducement a substantial population increase
based on an increase in the regional water supply will remain significant and
unavoidable. No new or more severe impacts beyond those previously identified
will result from the Project.
e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project?. See responses to "a" and
"b,"above.
f) Solid waste disposal? NI. The Project area is within the franchise area of Amador
Valley Industries, a company that provides residential and commercial solid waste
pick-up and recycling services. Impacts related to solid waste disposal were
analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR (see Impacts 3.4 / O and P regarding increased
waste production and increased demand for waste disposal facilities.) Mitigation
Measures 3.4/37.0-40.0 call for solid waste planning and diversion. No new or
more severe significant impacts would result with regard to this topic that have
not been previously analyzed in the Eastern Dublin EIR or the 2000 MND. No
additional analysis is required.
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 Project 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 habitats, to reduction of the range or number of endangered plant or
City of Dublin Page 76
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
animal species or the elimination of examples of major period of California history
or prehistory in the Eastern Dublin area have been analyzed and mitigated in the
1993 Eastern Dublin EIR and the 2000 MND. The proposed Project would cause no
new or substantially more severe significant impacts on biological or cultural
resources beyond those identified in previous environmental reviews.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
No. ("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 in the Eastern Dublin
EIR with regard to cumulative air quality, transportation and other issues for the
overall Eastern Dublin project, of which the Sorrento East Project is a component.
The proposed Project would not result in additional or more severe 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 identified
in this Initial Study.
City of Dublin Page 77
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Initial Study Preparers
Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Project Manager
Agencies and Organizations Consulted
The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial
Study:
City of Dublin
Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director
Michael Porto, Planning Consultant
Jamie Bourgeois, Senior Transportation Engineer
Kathleen Faubion, AICP, Assistant City Attorney
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Website
Dublin San Ramon Services District
Stan Kolodzie
Applicant Representatives
Connie Goldade, MacKay & Somps
Lisa Vilhauer, MacKay & Somps
References
City of Dublin Comprehensive Management Plan, undated
Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06
Eastern Dublin Specific Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report
Wallace Roberts & Todd, 1994
Eastern Dublin Scenic Corridor Policies and Standards, David Gates &
Associates, 1996
Environmental Site Assessment Update, Sorrento Sub Area ENGEO, Inc, June
2006
Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update
City of Dublin Page 78
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
Attachment 1-
Biological Resource Letter
City of Dublin Page 79
Initial Study/Sorrento East Project February 2010
PA 08-002
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
EC'OLOGIC'AL CONSULTANTS
22 December 2008
Jim Kern
Regent Properties
554 Kingsbridge Court
San Ramon, CA 94583
RE: Sorrento East Project Biological Survey Update Report (HTH #2998-01)
Dear Mr. Kern:
Per your request, H. T. Harvey & Associates has completed a biological resource
assessment of the approximately 70-acre Sorrento East Project (hereafter "Project") site
located north of Central Parkway, east of Lockhart Street, south of Gleason Drive, and
west of Grafton Street in Dublin, California. The purpose of these services is to provide
the City of Dublin with an update of the biological resources on the Sorrento East Project
site since the original California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance study in
1999. The Project site was originally a portion of the Dublin Ranch Project for which we
conducted the original biological resource assessment and subsequent mitigation
compliance activities. Based on this experience we conducted a background review of all
special-status species that may occur on the Project site and of all biological mitigation
compliance or regulatory compliance measures required for the Sorrento East Project.
Background Review of Biological Resources
Regulatory Permits. Biological resources on the Dublin Ranch Project site are subject
to mitigation or regulatory compliance measures required by the 1992 Eastern Dublin
Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EDSPEIR), the original U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2002 Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, the 2005
Amended USFWS Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, and the 2004 California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement. A significant
number of the compliance measures from the Biological Opinions and the CDFG
Agreement were completed during infrastructure construction by Dublin Ranch.
Special-status Species with Potential to Occur on the Project Site. The potential for
special-status species to occur the Project has changed since 1999 with respect to habitat
availability. Habitat has been removed from the site during construction of infrastructure
throughout the Dublin Ranch Project areas and site grading on the Sorrento East Project
site. There are no habitats for new, special-status species that were not present at the time
of the 1999 CEQA compliance study. In addition, numerous, typically monthly, pre-
construction surveys for special-status wildlife species have been conducted on or in
areas adjacent to the Project site since 2003 for the Dublin Ranch Project. These surveys
A
983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3210 0
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 2 of 9
have detected both California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) and burrowing owls
(Athene cunicularia) in the vicinity of the Sorrento East Project, and it is possible that
either of these species may occur on the Project site. Other than these two species and
occasional foraging and/or migratory birds, no special-status species have been observed
on or adjacent to the Project site during any of these surveys. Also, since the 1999 study
was conducted there has been a change in regulatory status of the California tiger
salamander (Ambystorna californiense), and new information has become available on
the occurrence of California red-legged frogs in the Project area.
California Tiger Salamander. When the CEQA compliance study was conducted in 1999,
the California tiger salamander was a Candidate species for protection under the Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA) and was subsequently considered under CEQA
compliance by the CDFG during permitting. This species was formally listed as federally
threatened under the FESA in 2004, and critical habitat was designated in 2005. The
Project site is not located within designated critical habitat for the California tiger
salamander.
The CDFG required mitigation for impacts to California tiger salamanders by the Dublin
Ranch Project that included salvaging California tiger salamanders from the Project area
prior to construction and relocating them to conservation areas. The mitigation for
California tiger salamanders was conducted during infrastructure construction over the
entire Dublin Ranch Project area. California tiger salamanders were translocated from
the Dublin Ranch Project area, inclusive of the Sorrento East Project site, in 2003.
Nighttime surveys were conducted and all burrows on the site (over 650) were excavated.
California tiger salamanders found during burrow excavation were translocated to the
Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Conservation Area. These measures removed all
individuals from the Project site and eliminated all suitable habitat from the Project site.
The California tiger salamander was the main subject of the 2005 amendment to the
USFWS Biological Opinion. However, since attempts to remove all California tiger
salamanders from the site have been undertaken, the only measures related to the species
that are applicable to the Sorrento East Project pertain to the potential discovery of
California tiger salamanders during construction.
California Red-legged Frog. The California red-legged frog was formally listed as
federally threatened under the FESA in 1996, and the status of the California red-legged
frog has not changed since the 1999 CEQA compliance study. The USFWS published
the current final critical habitat designation for the California red-legged frog on 13 April
2006. The Project site is not located within the designated critical habitat for the
California red-legged frog. Critical habitat for California red-legged frogs is under
review and was purposed on 16 September 2008. The project is not located within the
newly proposed critical habitat. New information about the distribution of California red-
legged frogs in the Project vicinity has become available since the 1999 CEQA
compliance documentation, and the California red-legged frog is subject to the Biological
Opinion issued by the USFWS for the Dublin Ranch Project area.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 40
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 3 of 9
In 1999, California red-legged frogs were known from a pond along Fallon Road near the
current location of Central Parkway. A single frog was found in a stock pond west of
Sorrento East and a single dead frog was found in a stock pond east of Sorrento East.
Consultation with the USFWS concerning this listed species resulted in the 2002
Biological Opinion. Mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frogs included
salvaging individuals from impact areas prior to construction and relocating them to
conservation areas. Between 1999 and 2003, the California red-legged frog population
on the Dublin Ranch site increased dramatically. In 2003 and 2004, during infrastructure
construction at Dublin Ranch, almost 850 frogs and over 2700 tadpoles were relocated to
conservation areas. All aquatic habitat was removed at that time; however, in the
intervening period, on-site drainages have been constructed along portions of Grafton
Street and Lockhart Street, and small areas of ponding have occurred on construction
sites throughout the Dublin Ranch Project Area, particularly during winter rains.
No frogs were observed on the Dublin Ranch Project site during pre-construction surveys
that took place between 2004, when translocations were completed, and January 2008.
In January 2008, a single California red-legged frog was observed on the Dublin Ranch
site in the drainage ditch at the comer of Central Parkway and Fallon Road,
approximately 0.3 mi from the Sorrento East Project site. In November of 2008, 5 red-
legged frogs were relocated from a small, deep pool at the corner of Central Parkway and
Lockhart Street, approximately 0.1 mi from the Sorrento East Project site. Given the
close proximity of these recent occurrences of California red-legged frogs to the Sorrento
East Project area, there is a possibility that dispersing individual California red-legged
frogs may occur on the Project site, especially during the rainy season and in any area of
ponded water.
San Joaquin Kit Fox. The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) was listed as
endangered by the USFWS in 1967 and by the State of California in 1971, and its status
has not changed since the 1999 CEQA compliance study. No critical habitat has been
designated for this species. There are no new records of the San Joaquin kit fox within
the Dublin Ranch Project area or in the vicinity of Dublin since the 1999 CEQA
compliance study.
As of 1999, numerous surveys for San Joaquin kit foxes had been conducted in the
Dublin Ranch Project area, and no evidence of kit foxes was detected during any of the
surveys. However, the Dublin Ranch site contained ostensibly suitable habitat for the
San Joaquin kit fox, and the USFWS maintained that kit foxes from the closest
populations approximately 9 miles to the east could range through this suitable habitat
and potentially occur within the Dublin Ranch Project site. Therefore, the 2002 USFWS
Biological Opinion included conservation measures for the San Joaquin kit fox which
pertain to the Sorrento East Project site. In addition, the EDSPEIR required surveys for
kit fox with which the Sorrento East Project must also comply.
No San Joaquin kit foxes or evidence of kit foxes has been observed on the Dublin Ranch
Project site during numerous pre-construction surveys that took place between the 1999
CEQA compliance study and December 2008.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 04
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 4 of 9
American Badger. The American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of
Special Concern. American badgers are known to occur in the Dublin area; the closest
record to the Sorrento East Project site is from the Northern Drainage Conservation Area,
approximately 1 mi north of the Project site. Badgers have extremely large home ranges,
and individuals could potentially disperse or forage through the grassland habitat on the
Sorrento East Project site. However, due to past measures that eliminated all burrows
from the Dublin Ranch Project area, no suitable denning habitat for this species is present
on the Project site. Nevertheless, the EDSPEIR requires pre-construction surveys for this
species.
Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern.
Burrowing owls and their nests are also protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and state Fish and Game Code. Burrowing owls occur frequently throughout the
East Dublin Specific Plan area, and owls have been observed during pre-construction
surveys of Project sites in the immediate vicinity of the Sorrento East Project area. Due
to past measures that eliminated all burrows from the Dublin Ranch Project area, only
marginal, disturbed foraging or dispersal habitat is present on the Project site.
Nevertheless, the EDSPEIR requires pre-construction surveys. The Dublin Ranch Project
reached agreement with the CDFG on a process to protect and passively remove non-
nesting burrowing owls; this process pertains to the Sorrento East Project area as well as
the remainder of Dublin Ranch.
Special-status Birds. The EDSPEIR includes assessment of potential impacts on and
mitigation measures for special-status bird species. Aside from burrowing owls, which
are covered separately in this update, the EDSPEIR requires pre-construction surveys for
tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) and "other species of special concern". The
CDFG list of California Species of Special Concern has changed at least twice since that
document and the 1999 site assessment were completed. Recently the CDFG revised its
list of Bird Species of Special Concern. There is no habitat in the Project area for any
newly listed bird Species of Special Concern except the loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus); however, some Species of Concern considered by the EDSPEIR are still
on the list and some have been removed. Some considered to potentially occur in the
East Dublin Specific Plan Area will not occur in the Sorrento East site due to a lack of
suitable habitat. Table 1 lists the species considered in the EDSPEIR, their current status,
and their potential for occurrence on the Sorrento East Project site.
Table 1. Special-status Species from the EDSPEIR and new additions, their status,
..a ..,,+o,.+:.?1 +., .,oo r nn QnrrPntn Fact cite-
allu vwu?aaa w a,....... .. - -- -
Species ----
Status in
EDSPEIR
Current
status
Potential to occur on
Sorrento East site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus SE, FE, BEPA SE, BEPA None
Golden eagle (Aquila ch saetos SSC, BEPA, SP, BEPA Forager
Northern harrier Circus c aneus SSC SSC Forager
Peregrine falcon Falco ere rinus anatum FE, SE SE, BEPA None
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus SSC None Forager
Sharp-shinned hawk Acci iter striatus SSC None None
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES i.1
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 5 of 9
Species Status in
EDSPEIR Current
status Potential to occur on
Sorrento East site
Cooper's hawk Acci iter coo erii SSC None None
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus * None SP Forager
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC SSC Fora er or nesting
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC SSC None
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus None SSC Forager
Tricolored blackbird A elaius tricolor SSC SSC None
SE=state endangered, FE=federally endangered, BEPA=Bald Eagle Protection Act, SSC=Species of
Special Concern. * Discussed but not listed in the EDSPEIR.
Because most of the nesting habitat and some of the foraging habitat on the Project site
has been removed, special-status species that may occur on the Sorrento East site are:
golden eagle, northern harrier, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike.
Only the burrowing owl may nest on the site, and special measures are provided (see
Updated Compliance Measures and Recommendations below) for burrowing owls. In
addition, all native, migratory birds in the United States are also protected by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and in California by the state Fish and Game Code; raptors
(birds of prey) have additional protections under the California Fish and Game Code; and
eagles are also protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act.
Biological Resources Survey
H. T. Harvey & Associates' wildlife ecologist Robin Carle, M.S., conducted a survey of
the Sorrento East Project site on 15 December 2008 to update the previous surveys,
including numerous surveys sine 1999 conducted for the purpose of compliance with
Dublin Ranch Project approvals.
Site Overview. The Project site currently consists of ruderal grassland habitat bisected
by a recently constructed paved road that parallels Gleason Drive and connects to
Lockhart Street. Approximately 30-40% of the site has been graded flat and
hydroseeded, with the remainder of the site graded for roads and housing pads and
vegetated by nonnative annual grasses and weeds. The parcels of land immediately
surrounding the Project site are a part of the larger Dublin Ranch Project such that single-
family residential development in various stages of construction is present north, west,
and south of the Project site. Open space consisting primarily of graded annual grassland
habitat occurs east of the Project where future development of the Fallon Sports Park
Complex is to occur.
Survey Results. There is no non-disturbed habitat on the site. The habitat for special-
status wildlife species that was formerly present is either very poor due to disturbance
associated with extensive grading on the Project site or absent due to past measures that
eliminated suitable habitat for these species. The majority of the special-status species
identified in the background review as potentially occurring in the Project vicinity are
considered to be absent from the Project site due to these degraded site conditions.
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ILA
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 6 of 9
California tiger salamander. There are no burrows of California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyi) to provide upland habitat for California tiger salamanders.
Thus, California tiger salamanders continue to be absent from the Project site as no
suitable habitat is present to support this species. Due to the history of permit compliance
on the Dublin Ranch site (including excavation of all burrows and relocation of tiger
salamanders) and the lack of available habitat, California tiger salamanders are not
expected to be present on the Sorrento East Project site.
California red-legged frog. No California red-legged frogs were observed during this
survey. However, the recent records from nearby on the Dublin Ranch Project site
indicate that California red-legged frogs may occur on the Sorrento East Project site.
Habitat on the Project site consists of heavily graded upland grassland areas, with no
aquatic habitat such as drainages, ponds, streams, or wetlands to provide suitable
breeding habitat for California red-legged frogs. However, standing water is likely to
accumulate in small depressions located throughout the site between the graded housing
pads where water collects after heavy rains. While there are no areas on the site where
these temporary pools can accumulate enough depth to support successful breeding by
California red-legged frogs, these pools may attract dispersing individuals and provide
opportunities for foraging or even unsuccessful breeding attempts.
San Joaquin Kit Fox. All areas within the project limits and adjacent areas, as access
allowed, were walked to detect the presence of kit foxes by searching for dens and related
sign. No burrows of California ground squirrels, or other mammal species, were detected
on the site during the survey. Therefore, no suitable breeding, denning, or foraging
habitat for this species is present on the Project site.
American Badger. All areas within the project limits and adjacent areas, as access
allowed, were walked to detect the presence of badgers by searching for dens and related
sign. No burrows of any mammal species were detected on the site during the survey.
Therefore, no suitable breeding, denning, or foraging habitat for this species is present on
the Project site.
Burrowing Owl. The Sorrento East Project site and surrounding areas within 250 ft were
surveyed for burrowing owls, as access allowed, and all potential burrows on the site
were examined for evidence of owl occupation such as the presence of feathers,
whitewash, or pellets. Although no small mammal burrows were found, a single owl was
detected approximately 300 ft from the southwest corner of the site at the opening to a
deep crack on the side of one of the housing pads. No burrows or other cracks suitable
for owl occupation were observed on the site.
Special-status Birds. The Sorrento East Project site and surrounding areas within 250 ft
were surveyed for nesting raptors or special-status birds either included in the
overarching EDSPEIR or with current status, as access allowed, including the golden
eagle, northern harrier, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite and loggerhead
shrike. Special-status birds observed during this survey include the burrowing owl
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES ILO
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 7 of 9
previously discussed and a single foraging northern harrier. No wetlands, shrubs, trees,
cavities, or structures that would support nesting raptors or special-status bird species are
present on or within 250 ft of the site, and no active or inactive nests were found within
the project impact area or within 250 ft of the project site. Special-status bird species
may forage in the open habitat on the site, but no suitable breeding habitat is present so
the project will not impact any special-status birds. While these special-status bird
species are commonly found in the Dublin Ranch Project area and may forage on the
Sorrento East Project site, no suitable breeding habitat is present in the disturbed, heavily
graded annual grassland habitat that comprises the Project area. Thus, the Project is not
expected to impact these species. Migratory birds protected by the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), were also present
on the Project site and may nest in the grassland habitat on the site during the breeding
season (1 February - 31 August).
Updated Compliance Measures and Recommendations
No new or additional measures or recommendations (beyond those in the EDSPEIR) are
warranted for the California tiger salamander, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, or
special-status birds with the exception of burrowing owls. However, the EDSPEIR
requires a pre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat modification to verify
absence of these species, all Species of Special Concern, and nesting raptors.
California Red-legged Frog. Because of the recent records of California red-legged
frogs in close proximity to the Project site, we recommend that pre-construction surveys
for California red-legged frogs as required by the Biological Opinion be conducted prior
to the start of construction. Should there be a break in construction of more than 14 days
during the rainy season, we recommend that this survey be repeated to ensure that no
dispersing individual California red-legged frogs are present on the site. This survey
should be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS to capture and
relocate California red-legged frogs under the 2002 and 2005 Biological Opinions for
Dublin Ranch. If a California red-legged frog or other listed species is found on the site,
the Biological Opinion establishes procedures to be followed (e.g., stopping work in the
area and having a USFWS-approved biologist relocate the frog to a Dublin Ranch
conservation area).
Burrowing Owl. Because burrowing owls are present in the vicinity of the Sorrento East
Project site and because an owl was observed on the Project site during the biological
resources assessment survey, we recommend pre-construction surveys and exclusion of
burrowing owls. It is our understanding that an informal mitigation agreement exists
between the Dublin Ranch Project site and the CDFG that allows the exclusion of
burrowing owls prior to disturbance activities outside of the nesting season. This
agreement should extend to the Sorrento East Project site, and no additional
compensatory mitigation would be required prior to the exclusion of owls. We
recommend that the pre-construction exclusion of owls from the Project site take place
prior to the start of the breeding season (i.e., prior to 1 February or after 31 August). If
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES to
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 8 of 9
burrowing owls are not excluded prior to 1 February, the CDFG is unlikely to allow the
exclusion of an established owl during the breeding season, and the EDSPEIR requires a
buffer of at least 300 ft around nesting sites of burrowing owls during the breeding
season. Thus, surveys for and exclusion of burrowing owls should take place prior to the
breeding season and/or to initiation of disturbance activities to avoid delays in
construction schedules. We recommend surveys to exclude owls from burrows and
crevices throughout the Project site followed by backfilling the "burrows" once owls
have been excluded. However, should a burrowing owl occur on the Project site during
the nesting season, the CDFG should be consulted to determine if exclusion is possible
prior to nest establishment; otherwise, construction-free buffers of 300 ft around active
burrows will need to be established.
Currently Applicable Regulatory Permit Measures. Biological resources on the
Dublin Ranch Project site are subject to mitigation or regulatory compliance measures
required by the 1992 EDSPEIR, the original 2002 Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch,
the 2005 Amended Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch, and the 2004 CDFG Streambed
Alteration Agreement. While habitat has been removed for most species, and many
measures were completed during Dublin Ranch infrastructure construction, there are
measures that still apply to the Sorrento East Project. Please refer to each of the original
documents for all requirements. The following measures deserve particular note:
o The EDSPEIR requires a pre-construction survey within 60 days prior to habitat
modification to verify presence of San Joaquin kit fox, nesting raptors, California red-
legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, western pond turtles (no habitat),
tricolored blackbirds (no nesting habitat) and other Species of Special Concern. The
Biological Opinion requires surveys for California red-legged frogs prior to
construction. A survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the
USFWS to capture and relocate California red-legged frogs under the 2002 and 2005
Biological Opinions for Dublin Ranch. If a California tiger salamander or California
red-legged frog is found on the site, an approved biologist must be the only one
handling or relocating the animal.
o The Biological Opinion for the Dublin Ranch Project area requires an employee
training program for construction workers conducted by a knowledgeable biologist
prior to the initiation of ground disturbance activities. The training program should
cover the biology and identification of the San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged
frog, and California tiger salamander as well as the measures required by project
permits to avoid or minimize impacts to these species. Because it is still possible for
California red-legged frogs in particular (and perhaps California tiger salamander) to
occur on the site, construction workers should know how to identify these listed
species and how to respond to the detection of an individual of a protected species.
o The 2004 CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement specifies that equipment shall not
be operated in wetted areas (including but not limited to ponded, flowing, or wetland
areas). If construction activities are to occur in areas of the Project site with ponded
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES i.1
J. Kern
22 December 2008
Page 9 of 9
water, this water may need to be removed using a pump and the procedure monitored
by a qualified and approved biologist to ensure that no California red-legged frogs,
eggs, or larvae are harmed.
Please contact me at (408) 458-3225 or if you have any
questions about our survey results or this report. Thank you for contacting H. T. Harvey
& Associates regarding this survey. We would be happy to continue to assist you in
complying with remaining permit and mitigation measures for this project.
Sincerely;
Julie Klingmann?M.S.
Project Manager - Wildlife Ecologist
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES %4P