No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.5 Schaefer Ranch South PA08-005AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 14, 2008 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING (Legislative Action) - PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South: General Plan Amendment to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac), Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses, and a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for an 81.3+/- acre area, a Vesting Tentative Map 8000 to subdivide 41.5+/- acres into 140 single-family residential lots, a Development Agreement, and a CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranc i Environmental Impact Report. Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, with the Initial Study and Addendum included as Exhibits A and B, respectively. 2) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Fancily Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South, with the draft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 3) Resolution recommending that fie City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South, with the draft Ordinance included as Exhibit A. 4) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000. 5) Resolution recommending th<<t the City Council approve a Development Agreement betweim the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, with t le draft City Council Resolution included as Exhibit A. 6) City Council Staff Report dated August 21, 2007 without attachments. 7) City Council Meeting Minutes dated August 21, 2007. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: --------------------------------- COPY TO: Property Owners File ITEM NO. ?3.5 Page 1 of 12 G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South0anning Commission\pcsr 10.14.08.doc a. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1); b. Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations (Attachment 2); c. Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance apprcving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3); d. Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000 (Attachment 4); and e. Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Attachment 5). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background The Schaefer Ranch project is described in the City of Dublin General Plan and is located within the Western Extended Planning Area. Schaefer Ranch includes approximately 500 acres located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda County (see Map 1 to the right). The westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard leads into the project area where Dublin Boulevard terminates. •_ _ -- , 1.-._,_ `,i..,' ti , a - J4? k! Map 1: Vicinity Map The Schaefer Ranch project area was annexed to the City of Dublin in 1996 at the request of the property owner. The original approvals adopted by the City Council in 1996 included a General Plan Amendment (GPA) (Resolution 77-96), Planned :Development Rezone (Ordinance 15-96 and Resolution 78-96), and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Resolution 76-96). The original approvals anticipated development of 474 single-family home, parks, open space, commercial, and public/semi- public uses. The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Map 6765 (VTM) in 1998 (Resolution 98-38). The VTM created 466 residential lots, as well as commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels. The City Council approved a Development Agreement for the project in 1998 (Ordinance 20-98) which expired on December 31, 2006. The Mitigation Measures contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the Conditions of Approval for the VTM required the project proponent to obtain permits for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project from the various environmental regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the area. The project proponent successfully obtained approval from the environmental agencies. However, the approval from the various agencies required the preservation of sensitive habitat for protected wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in the need to reconfigure a portion of the project which ultimately reduced the intensity of the overall development. Page 2 of 12 In 2004, the Developer submitted a Lot Reconfiguration Concept to the City which reflected the requirements by the regulatory agencies. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept included 302 residential lots (18 estate lots and 284 single-family lots), commercial parcels totaling 8.99-acres, a 10.25-acre park site, and the dedication of land to the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for a trail head staging area and trails. The lot reconfiguration concept reduced the previously approved 466 units to 302 units, a reduction of 164 units. On site open space areas were increased as a r: sult of the lot reconfiguration. Due to resource agency requirements, the Developer also preserved approximately 248 acres of land to the north and west of the project site with a permanent conservation easement. The City Council reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21, 2004, and directec Staff to work with the Applicant to prepare a Final Map based on the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. The Final Map for 302 residential units was deemed complete in December of 2006 and was recorded on Mar-,h 8, 2007. A Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and a Site Development Review (SDR) were approved in 2006 to allow construction of single-family homes within Schaefer Ranch (Ordinance 11-06 and Resolution 06-17). The Schaefer Ranch project is now in construction in accordance with the above mentioned approvals. Extensive grading activity has been completed and construction of the first phase of residential neighborhoods to the north of Dublin Boulevard is currently underway. In addition, major infrastructure has been constructed, including the Dublin Boulevard extension, Schaefer Ranch Road, a water storage tank, and storm water retention basins. In addition to the ongoing construction, Discovery Builders has entered into a written agreement with The School of Imagination (SOI) to construct a preschool/day care facility on Parcel J of Schaefer Ranch. Discovery will lease the facility to SOI for a period of 15 years and Provide an option to extend the lease for an additional 30 years. Construction of the preschool/day care facility will require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Site Development Review (SDR). These entitlements are not included in the current request and will be brought forward for consideration at a later date. Discovery's agreement to construct the preschool/day care facility is predicated on the City granting the re quested entitlements. Current Request The Applicant proposes to construct 104 additional single-family homes at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and facilitate future development of the School of Imagination at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. On August 21, 2007, the Applicant submitted a request to initiate a General Plan Amendment for the proposed development. The City Council granted the Applicant's request to initiate a General Plan Amendment (GPA) Study (Attachments 6 and 7). The Applicant is currently requesting approval of the following: 1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residenl ial (0.9-6.0 du/ac), and increase the acreage for Open Space and Public/Semi-Public land uses. 2. Planned Development (PD) Rezone with Stage 2 Developmern Plan, and 3. Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide 41.5+/- acres into 141) single-family residential lots (an increase of 104 lots over the existing approvals for the project Site), 4. Development Agreement, and 5. CEQA Addendum to the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impa,,t Report (EIR) are also a part of the proposed project. The following is a discussion of the proposed entitlements. Page 3 of 12 ANALYSIS: General Plan Amendment The proposed GPA would modify the existing Estate Residential (0.1-0.8 d/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations at the southwest and southeast corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. Please refer to Map 2 for the location of the existing land use designations. The proposed modifications would accommodate development of additional single-family homes, construction of the School of Imagination, and better address the existing topography of the site. Please refer to Table 1 below for a summary of the proposed land use modifications. Tnhle 1! F.xistinu vs_ Pronosed Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Existing (Acres) Proposed (Acres) Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) 56.94 ac 0.00 ac Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac) 16.36 ac 29.70 ac Neighborhood Commercial 8.00 ac 0.00 ac Public/Semi-Public 0.00 ac 1.21 ac Open Space 0.00 ac 50.39 ac Total Acreage: 81.30 ac 81.30 ac The southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Open Space Public/Semi- Schaefer Ranch Road is currently designated Estate ? •'? Public Residential, Single-Family Residential, and -.? Retail/Office. The Applicant is proposing to change these land use designations to Single- Family Residential. The Single-Family Residential designation would allow development of detached residential units. Please refer to Map 3 for the - I location of the proposed land use designations. Single-Family The area located immediately north of I-580 and Residential east of Schaefer Ranch Road is currently designated Map 3: Proposed Land Use Designations Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential and Retail/Office. However, this area has steep slopes in excess of 30% and is not appropriate for development. Therefore, the Applicant proposes to change the land use designation for this area to Open Space (Please refer to Map 3). The Open Space land use designation is intended to ensure protection of those areas. The land located at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road (Parcels J and K on Final Map 6765 and shown on Map 2 above) has a current General Plan land use designation of Retail/Office. The original approvals for Schaefer Ranch identified Parcel J as a future day care site and Parcel K was reserved as a possible future fire station site. In addition to the General Plan designations, the existing PD zoning requires public/semi-public uses on these parcels. The Applicant proposes to Page 4 of 12 Map 2: Existing Land Use Designations change the land use designation of these parcels to Public/Semi-Public (P/SP) in order to be consistent with the intended use of these sites as defined in the PD (Please refer to Map 3). As previously discussed, the Applicant has entered into an agreement with SOI to construct a preschool/day care facility on Parcel J The project is located within the Western Extended Planning Area of the General Plan, which does not currently have a P/SP land use designation. Therefore, Staff has prepared the following P/SP designation. This description is based on the existing P/SP designation that is described in the General Plan for the Primary Planning Area and the Eastern Extended Planning Area. The maximum FAR has been increased to 0.60 in order to accommodate the potential SOI facility. Public/Semi-Public Facilities (Maximum of .60 FAR; employee density: 590 square feet per employee) A combination land use category of Public Facilities land uses and Semi-Public Facilities land uses. Public Facilities are uses other than parks owned by a public agency or non profit entity that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. Such uses include public schools, libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; utilities; and, Civic Center. Semi-Public Facilities uses are quasi public uses, such as child care centers, youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious institutions, clubhouses, community centers, community theatres, hospitals, private schools, and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and benefit the community. A Semi-Public Facility may be used for more than one such use. Development of housing on a site designated on the General Plan as Semi-Public Facilities shall be considered consistent with the General Plan when it is developed by a nonprofit entity and serves to meet affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the community. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific Semi-Public Facilities site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed General Plan Amendments are included as Attachment 2, Exhibit A of this Staff Report (please refer to Page 2 of Exhibit A for the Findings). Stage 2 Planned Development Plan/Development Standards The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Section 8.32.040.13) and applies to the Schaefer Ranch South project area. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3, Exhibit A) includes: 1) statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan; 2) statement of proposed uses; 3) Stage 2 Site Plan; 4) site area and proposed densities; 5) development regulations; 6) architectural standards; and 7) preliminary landscaping plan. The following is a discussion of key elements of the proposed Stage 2 Development Plan. Statement of Proposed Uses: The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan includes a complete list of permitted, conditionally permitted and temporary uses. These uses are consistent with the uses permitted under the existing PD for the remainder of the Schaefer Ranch development. Stage 2 Site Plan and Densities: The proposed site plan and PD Single-Family, densities are shown in Map 4 and Table 2 below and are Residential included as part of the proposed Stage 2 PD Ordinance (the Single-Family Residential land use designation density range is 0.9-6.0 du/acre). The proposed land uses and densities are consistent with the proposed GPA. PD Open Space ? =m , f: Page 5 of 12 Map 4: Stage 2 PD Site Plan Table 2: Site Area and Proposed Densities Land Use Designation AcresGross Net Acres bei ts N Units of Uni Density Gross Net Density Sin le-Famil Residential 29.70 ac 22.35 ac 140 unit:; 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac Open Space 50.39 ac 47.22 ac n/a n/a n/a Total: 80.09 ac 69.57 ac 140 uniti 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac Development Standards/Regulations: The proposed Development Standards for the PD-Residential Single-Family zoning district within Schaefer Ranch South are shown in Table 3 below. The proposed Development Standards address things such as maximum lot coverage, building heights and setbacks, and usable yard requirements. Table 3: Development Standards/Re ulations - PD-Residential Single Family STANDARD Minimum Unless Otherwise Noted Lot Size 4500 sf Lot Width • Typical street 45 ft • Cul-de-sac (measure at right-of-way) 35 ft Lot Depth 100 ft Lot Coverage • one-story 45 % maximum • two-story 35 % maximum Building Height (two-story maximum) 35 ft Setbacks Front Yard • to living or porch loft • to front entry garage 18 ft • to side entry garage 15 ft Side Yard • typical 5 ft • at corners 8 ft Rear Yard 10 ft Detached 2" Unit/Casita • Minimum rear yard setback 5 ft • Maximum building height 17 ft • Roof design Hip. Except a ];able element may be used where second unit/casita does not abut another lot on the rear property ling. • Roof pitch Minimum 4:12 sloping away from all property lines so as to not overpower the adjacent neighbor. • Architectural design Consistent with main building including all materials. All elements of the main building shall be replicated on the second unit/casita. • Detached 2"d Unit/Casita Lot Restrictions Not permitted on Lots 36 through 46 Permitted in side yard provided unit does not extended beyonc rear of home on Lots 47 & 48. Usable Yard • size 500 sf contiguous flat • dimension 10 ft minimum any one side and 15 it diameter clear within usable yard Page 6 of 12 Parking Spaces a • Off-street covered (enclosed garage) 2 • additional space (may be on-street) I Specific Notes: Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum lot area that may be covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include: all land covered by principal buildings, garages and carports, permitted accessory structures, covered decks and gazebos, and other covered and enclosed areas. It does not include: standard roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, and paved areas such as walkways, driveways, patios, uncovered parking areas, or roads. (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.36.100). (2) Residential Building Height: The 35-foot maximum two stories shall be measured from the finished grade at the midpoint of the building (as shown on a iagade or cross section view running parallel to the slope) to the top ridge of the structure's roof. However, architectural features and elements may exceed this provision by a 5-foot maximum, and a gable element may exceed this provision by a 5-foot maximum, subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. (3) Second Units/Casita - Detached a) A second unit is defined as having a kitchen or kitchenette and will require a dedicated parking space either within a garage or on the driveway. b) A casita will not include a kitchen or kitchenette and th :refore an additional parking space shall not be required. Secondary dwelling units/caritas are subject to development standards provided herein and current Dublin Second Units Regulations (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.80), except that that maximum lot coverage shall be 50% for the primary dwelling unit and secondary dwelling unit/casita combined. General Residential Yard Provisions: (A) Setbacks - All setbacks are measured from the property line. (B) Allowable Encroachments - Items such as (but not limited to) air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, media centers, etc. may -ncroach into the required setback provided that a minimum unobstructed 3 foot wide flat and level path is maintained to provide access past said items. (C) Except as prohibited under setback requirements above, roof eaves, pop-outs, architectural projects, and columns may encroach into required yard area :;etbacks subject to compliance with building codes. (D) Setbacks for accessory structures shall be in accordance with the building code in effect at the time of construction/installation. Noise generating equipment such as pool and spa equipment shall be acoustically screened or located outside of the setback area. (E) On lots where a minimum rear yard clear and level zone canna be provided due to topography or vegetation constraints, decks of comparable area shall be allowed and required subject to Site Development Review. Page 7 of 12 Architectural Standards: The following five (5) architectural styles are provided in the Stage 2 Development Plan. The variety of architectural styles will provide visual interest and identity for each neighborhood street. The architectural elements will be articulated and themed to represent a variety of styles through color, texture, and massing details. The architectural styles, along with design elements, are identified below: California Ranch: The California Ranch style is represented by low pitch roof in a hip, gable, or Dutch gable configuration with flat, shingle-like roof tiles. Exterior materials include wood siding, stucco, and board & batten accents combined with brick and stone accents, and post elements at a front porch. Architectural features include articulated windows, shutters, gable end details with wood truss shapes, louvers, and exposed rafter details. Colors and materials are light brown and charcoal blends with varied color accents. Monterey: The Monterey style is characterized by low-pitched gable roof and cantilevered second story balconies covered by the principal roof of flat or "S" co icrete tile. Wall materials typically are different for first and second floors generally consisting of extensive use of brick on the lower levels with stucco, wood siding, or board and batten above. Architectural elements include simple wooden posts and railings, shutters, window frames, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission blends with varied color accents. Early Californian: Early Californian is distinguished by simple massing and the principal roof material of concrete barrel tiles representing terracotta in color and form on a hip or gable roof above shorter overhangs. Stucco finished exteriors are accented by arched doorways, shutters, wrought iron detailing, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission and brown blends with varied tone accents. English Country: Formal characteristics of the English Country style are identified by steeper pitched roof elements with gable forms, stucco accent walls, use of brick accents, and half- timbered details. Stone features, bricked archways, decorative; corbels, and multi-paned windows give this style its country image along with the hip and gable roof elements. Colors and materials are lighter charcoal and brown blends with earthy green tone a,:cents. Craftsman: The Craftsman style features combinations of wood shingled, board & batten, and clapboard siding with stone accent bases with square tapered columns. The long, low-pitched gable roofs of flat tile are supported by eave overhangs with decorative wooden braces and exposed rafter details. Colors and materials are charcoal and gray-brown blends with varied color accents. The development and architectural standards are consistent with the previously approved Schaefer Ranch project and the lot sizes are comparable to the existing lots within Schaefer Ranch. An SDR is required for construction of units on the proposed lots. The Applicant is rot proposing an SDR at this time. Therefore, the SDR will be brought forward for consideration at a futLre public hearing. Preliminary Landscape Plan: A Preliminary Landscape Plan has b,,-en prepared to address the project backbone landscaping. The Preliminary Landscape Plan includes conceptual neighborhood entries, streetscape and common area landscape treatment, and wall and fencing details. The Preliminary Landscape Plan has been incorporated into the Stage 2 Development and is consistent in design with landscaping for the approved project. The proposed Stage 2 Development Plan is included in Attachment 3 Exhibit A (please refer to Page 1 of Exhibit A for the Findings). Page 8 of 12 Vesting Tentative Map Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 would subdivide approximately 41.5-acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road into 140 single-family residential lots, a pedestrian paseo, common area landscape parcels, and related roadways to serve the subdivision. Access to the proposed subdivision is provided by future "Road 1" and "Road 3", which connect to Dublin Boulevard. The proposed subdivision has a density of 4.71 units/acre. The proposed density is consistent with the density range permitted by the proposed Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac) land use designation (please refer to the GPA discussion above). This project site was previously subdivided into 12 estate lots, 24 single-family lots, and a 5.69-acre commercial parcel (Final Map 6765). The proposed subdivision may- would eliminate the existing estate lots, single-family residential lots, and the commercial parcel in this area, resulting in a net increase of 104 residential lots as shown in Table 4 below. If approved, the overall Schaefer Ranch development would have a total of 406 single-family homes. The total number of residential units would be less than the 474 units that were originally contemplated and approved for the,:ntire Schaefer Ranch project site in 1998. Table 4 - Residential Lot Unit Count 1,10 Proposed Lots -[2 Existing Estate Lots -24 Existing Single-Family Lots 104 Additional Lots The draft Resolution and Conditions of Approval for VTM 8000 are, included as Attachment 4 of this Staff Report (please refer to page 2 of Attachment 4 for the Findings). In accordance with the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Site Development Review Chapter 8.104), the developer is required to obtain approval of an SDR in order to constrict homes on the proposed lots. An application for SDR is not part of the current entitlement request. Tf erefore, an SDR application will be presented to the Planning Commission at a later date. Development Agreement The Development Agreement provides security to the Developer that the City will not change its zoning and other laws applicable to the project for a period of fifteen years. In return, the Developer agrees to comply with the Conditions of Approval and make commitments which the City might otherwise not have the authority to compel. The proposed Development Agreement includes an exception to tl.e Inclusionary Zoning Regulations (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.68). The Development Agreement allows the developer to meet the obligation to provide 17 affordable units for the 140-unit subdivision by constructing "granny units" or duplexes. The Development Agreement further allows the developer to construct the 17 affordable units within the 140-unit subdivision, or to construct the affordable units on lots throughout the overall Schaefer Ranch development. Under the terms of the proposed Development Agreement, the Developer will reserve the 0.65-acre parcel at the southeast corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road (Parcel K on Final Map 6765) as a fire station site. Under the terms of this agreement, the reservation will terminate in 2 years if not exercised by the City. This site was previously reserved as a 'ire station site under the original Development Agreement that was approved in 1998 and has since expired. Page 9 of 12 The Development Agreement also provides that the Developer will make a financial contribution for public art at the Dublin Historic Park. The in-lieu fee contribution will be made in accordance with the Dublin Public Art Program (Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.58). The Development Agreement further obligates the Developer to make a financial contribution of $1,500,000 to the City for construction of the Dublin Historic Pai k. The Developer will contribute $750,000 when the Developer receives all discretionary land use entitlements from the City or upon issuance of the I" building permit in the 140-unit subdivision, which ever comes first. The Developer will contribute the remaining $750,000 to the City prior to issuance of the 75th building permit in the 140- unit subdivision. A Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Development Agreement is included as Attachment 5 (please refer to page 1 of Attachment 5 for the Findings). Inclusionary Zoning/Affordable Housing The project is subject to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations which will be addressed at a later time by a separate Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council. This Agreement must be finalized prior to approval of a Final Map or Site Development Review, which ever occurs first. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #9`.033070) was certified by the City Council on July 9, 1996 (Resolution 76-96). The project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included a total of 474 residential units and 10.7-acres of commercial development. Vesting Tentative Map 6765 was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission in 1998, (Resolution 98-38) creating 466 residential lots. Final Map 6765 was recorded on March 8, 2007, creating 302 residential units and commercial parcels totaling 7.99-acres. The proposed Schaefer Ranc 1 South development would replace 12 estate lots and a 5.69-acre commercial site with 104 additional : ingle-family lots. If approved, the Schaefer Ranch development would include a total of 406 lots (400 ;tingle-family lots and 6 estate lots), which is less than the 474 units studied in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed project also includes future development of a preschool/day care facility on Parcel J of Final Map 6765. The EIR previously contemplated commercial development consistent with a preschool/day care facility on Parcel .1. The City prepared an Initial Study to determine whether there could be significant environmental impacts occurring as a result of this project beyond or different from those already addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment beyond or different from those already addressed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, and no significant information has arisen for this project during the preparation of this Initial Study that would require further environmental review. Therefore, an Addendum to the EIR was prepared documenting these facts. This Addendum will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the public hearing. A Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the C_EQA Addendum is included as Attachment I with the Initial Study and Addendum included as Exhibits A and B of Attachment 1. CONCLUSION: The proposed project complements the existing Schaefer Ranch development by providing land uses and a street system that are compatible with the existing project approvals. The proposed PD Zoning and Stage Page 10 of 12 2 Development Plan are consistent with the General Plan land use designations as proposed to be amended. The proposed VTM would create 140 single-family lots (a net increase of 104 lots) that are consistent with the proposed land use designation and would implement the Stage 2 Development Plan. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan as amended, and all project approvals. An Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the potential for environmental impacts and a CEQA Addendum was prepared for the project. An SDR is required for construction of units on the proposed lots and for the future School of Imagination facility. The Applicant is not proposing an SDR at this time. Therefore, the SDR for these projects will be brought forward for consideration at a future public hearing. NOTICING: In accordance with State law, a public notice regarding this hearing wis mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the proposed project. A public notice w<<s also mailed to all property owners and occupants of the California Highlands development which is located immediately to the east of the Schaefer Ranch development on Dublin Boulevard. A public notice was also published in the Valley Times and posted at several locations throughout the City. To date, :he City has not received comments or objections from surrounding property owners or tenants regarding the current proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Open the Public Hearing; 3) Take testimony from the Applicant and the public; 4) Close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and 5) Adopt the following Resolutions: a) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a CEQA Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 1); b) Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Dublin General Plan to change the existing Estate Residential, Single-Family Residential, and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential, Open Space, and Public/Semi-Public land use designations (Attachment 2); c) Resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving a PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (Attachment 3); d) Resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 8000 (Ate achment 4); and e) Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Development Agreerr.ent between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Attachment 5). Page 11 of 12 GENERAL INFORMATION: PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Doug Chen Discovery Builders, Inc. 4061 Port Chicago High ray, Suite H Concord, CA 94520 LOCATION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: SURROUNDING USES: Southwest and southeasl corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road 941-2832-027 to 028, and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021 Planned Development Zcning (PD) Planned Development Zcning (PD) Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/ac) Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac) Retail/Office Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/ac) Public/Semi-Public Open Space LOCATION ZONING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CURRENT USE OF PROPERTY North PD Single-Family, Open Space, and Neighborhood Park Future single-family homes, future public park, and open space South PD -- I-580") East PD Open Space Schaefer Ranch Road, open space, and storm water detention basin West PD Estate Residential Schaefer Residence Across 1-580 - Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian facility and vacant lands wilhin the unincorporated portion of Alameda County Page 12 of 12 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A CEQA ADDENDUM TO THE 1996 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SCHAEFER RANCH PROJECT AND A RELATED INITIAL STUDY (APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the Dublin City Council approved a Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment and Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration. (Resolution No. 77-96); an Ordinance and Resolution approving a Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance No. 15-96 and Resolution No. 78-96); and a Resolution certifying an Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 95033070), which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference (Resolution No. 76-96); and WHEREAS, the Project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR included the following land uses and related features: a total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residence 389 single family detached dwellings and 74 attached residential dwellings; retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail and office center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second, smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580; public and semi-public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a water storage tank and street rights-of-way; and parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park Distri(;t trail, trail head facilities and related improvements. The Schaefer Ranch EIR examined the direct and indirect effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures for development of the Schaefer Ranch Project. It identified certain unavoidable significant impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project relating to impacts on secondary effects on native plants and wildlife, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and landscape alteration, and cumulative vegetation and wildlife impacts; and WHEREAS, the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by City Council Resolution No. 77-96 concluded that the substantial public benefits of the Schaefer Ranch Project, including job creation, increased City sales and property tax revenues, increased housing opportunities ind a concomitant improvement of the City Jobs/Housing Balance, supported approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, in 1998, the Planning Commission approved VTM 6765 (Resolution 98-38) and created 466 residential lots, and commercial, parks, and public/semi-public parcels for Schaefer Ranch. The Final Map 6765 on the Proposed Project site, Schaefer Ranch South, created 12 -,state lots, 24 single-family lots, and a 5.69-acre commercial parcel on approximately 41.5 acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC (" kpplicant"), requested in 2007 that the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to modify the General Plan Land Use Designations for certain portions of the Project site; and Pagel of 3 ATTACHMENT I WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicant's request and initiated a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South Project (]Resolution No. 154-07); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted applications for a modification of the Schaefer Ranch Project to allow the construction of up to 140 single-family units on the Schaefer Ranch South Project site. The applications include: a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000, and a Development Agreement. The GPA is for approximately 81.3 acres to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space. A PD rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan to revise the zoning and development plan. A Development Agreement that vests development approvals for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City., as mutually agreed by both parties. A vesting tentative subdivision map to create individual building lots on the Project site. These entitlemi;nts are collectively referred to as the Project or Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the overall Schaefer Ranch Project analyzed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR contained 474 residential units and approximately 10.7 acres of commercial uses. Approval of the modifications to the Schaefer Ranch Project under the Proposed Project will result in a tot?.l of 406 residential units and property designated to allow public or semi-public uses, including a children's day care center; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, require :hat certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for Proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 (Sections 15162/3) are met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3 due to modifications to the approved Schaefer Ranch Project under the Proposed Project. The Initial Study, dated October 2008, is attached as Exhibit A of this Resolution. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B of this Resolution. The Initial Study and Addendum have been available to the public at the Planning Department at City Hall. CEQA does not require that the Initial Study and Addendum be circulated for agency or public review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Addendum, Initial Study, and the Schaefer Ranch EIR prior to making a recommendation on the Project; ar.d WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008, was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the Project and recommending, approval of the CEQA Addendum and the Project applications; and Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission used its independent judgment and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action on the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Addendum dated October 2, 2008, the Initial Study dated October 2008, and the Schaefer Ranch EIR (which are available for review during normal business hours and on file in the Community Development Department). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the CEQA Addendum and related Initial Study attached hereto as Exhibits A and B pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14`h day of October 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: IPA#110081PA 08-005 Schacfer Ranch SoulhIPlanning CommissionlPC Reso Schaefer CEQA Addendum doc Page 3 of 3 SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 PA 08-005 INITIAL ?ST UDY Lead Agency: City of Dublin Prepared By: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner October 2008 RECEIVE OCT 0 G 2008 EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 1 OU8LIN PLANNING Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2 Applicant ................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location and Context .................................................................................. 2 Project Description ................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................... 14 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 16 Attachment to Initial Study ..................................................................................... 29 1. Aesthetics ........................................................................................... 30 2. Agricultural Resources ..................................................................... 33 3. Air Quality ......................................................................................... 34 4. Biological Resources .......................................................................... 36 5. Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 38 6. Geology and. Soils .............................................................................. 39 7. Hazards and. Hazardous Materials .................................................. 42 8. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................... 44 9. Land Use and Planning ................................................................... 48 10. Mineral Resources ............................................................................ 48 11. Noise .................................................................................................. 49 12. Population and Housing ................................................................. 51 13. Public Services .................................................................................. 52 14. Recreation ......................................................................................... 56 15. Transportation/ Traffic .................................................................... 57 16. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................... 61 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................... 64 Initial Study Preparers ............................................................................................. 65 Agencies and Organizations Consulted .................................................................65 References ................................................................................................................. 65 City of Dublin Environmental Checklist/ Initial Study Introduction This Initial Study has been prepared in accord with the -1rovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines, and City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines. The Initial Study assesses th ? potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. The proposed Project is a modification of a project already approved by the City -the Schaefer Ranch Project. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in an environmental impact report that was certified by the City in 1996 (Schaefer Ranch Project/ General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 95033070 (Schaefer Ranch EIR or 1996 EIR). For the potentially significant impacts identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR that apply to the proposed Project, the adopted mitigation measures also apply and are incorporated into this Initial Study by reference. Applicant Discovery Homes 4061 Port Chicago Highway, Suite H Concord CA 94520 Attn: Doug Chen, RCE, LS (925)803-2617 Project Location and Context The Project analyzed in this document is a portion of thE' larger Schaefer Ranch development project, identified as Unit 2 of Schaefer Ranch. The overall Schaefer Ranch development contains approximately 500-acres of land 1 Dcated in the western portion of the City of Dublin and adjacent to the western City limit of Dublin. More specifically, the Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-5 30 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of cur -ent City of Dublin City limits. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional setting of Dublin. Exhibit 2 shows the location of the Schaefer Ranch in context with the City of Dublin and & e I-580 freeway. This Initial Study analyzes proposed land use changes that would affect the approximately 81.3-acreUnit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch located on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. For the purposes of this Initial Study, this area is identified as the "Project" or the "Prof °ct Site." The Project Site is shown on Exhibit 3. City of Dublin Page 2 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Existing land uses adjacent to the overall Schaefer Ranch include vacant lands to the north and west, vacant lands and residential uses to the east and the I-580 freeway to the south. Properties south of I-580 include the Rowell Ranch rodeo and equestrian facility and vacant lands within the unincorporated por ion of Alameda County. Project Description Background The Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment and prezoning was approved by the City of Dublin in 1996. Subsequently, the Ranch was annexed into the City of Dublin and Dublin San Ramon Services District. A vesting tentative subdivision map and a development agreement were approved by the City of Dublin in 1998. The project analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included the following land uses and related features: • A total of 474 residences, including 11 estate residences, 389 singe family detached dwellings and 74 attached residential dwellings; • Retail and office uses, including a 9.2-acre neighborhood-serving retail and office center on the corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and a second, smaller 1.5-acre retail and office parcel adjacent to I-580; • Public and semi- public uses including a recycled water reservoir, a water storage tank and street rights-of-way; • Parks and recreation uses consisting of approximately 162 acres of land that includes dedication to the East Bay Regional Park. District trail, trail head facilities and related improvements. A private homeowners' association recreation facility was also approved; • Approximately 89 acres of the Schaefer Ranch would be devoted to other non- buildable open spaces, including but not limited to wildlife habitat areas, drainage retention areas and a reconstructed creek corridor. Primary access is provided by the westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard and the construction of Schaefer Ranch Road, a north south arterial roadway that crosses under the I-580 freeway to connect to Dublin Canyon Road sm.th of the freeway. A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map was subsequently approved by the City of Dublin for 466 total lots on the Schaefer Ranch. The original approval also included extensive grading and recontouring of the site and extension of ut lities and services to support proposed uses. Significant portions of the Schaefer Ranch have since been constructed. To date, the Project developer has regraded the Schaefer Ranch property, re-subdivided portions of the overall property into 302 lots and, extended Dublin Boulevard, constructed Schaefer Ranch Road, dedicated trails to the East Bay Regional Park District, constructed a water storage tank and stormwater retention basins and completed major water and sewer lines. City of Dublin Page 3 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Development Concept for the proposed Project The proposed Project includes amending the Dublin General Plan, a vesting tentative subdivision map, a Stage 2 Development Plan and a Development Agreement to delete the currently approved approximately 5.69-acre retail commercial site on the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, 12 estate lots and 24 single- family on the south side of Dublin Boulevard and generally west of the retail commercial site. The location and design of currently approved General Plan land uses are shown on Exhibit 4. These uses would be replaced with up to 140 single-family detached lots. Exhibit 5 shows proposed. General Plan land uses. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed vesting subdivision map for the proposed Project. If approved, the build-out number of dwellings on the entire Schaefer Ranch would be 406 dwellings, which is less than originally approved and fewer dwellings analyzed in the 1996 EIR, which was 474 residential lots and 5 acres (gross) of commercial uses. The proposed Project would also include construction of a children's day care center on a portion of the Project Site, located south of Dublin Boulevard and east of Schaefer Ranch Road. This facility, known as "Happy Talkers," would consist of a freestanding building of up to 14,375 square feet, with associated parking and a play area. The facility would be owned and operated by Happy Talker3, Inc. The Happy Talkers facility would consist of a two-story 14,200 square foot building. The initial phase of the facility would include 6 classrooms, 1S teachers and up to 60 children enrolled in the program on the ground floor, increasing to 12 classrooms, 36 teachers and 120 students. Access and circulation The currently approved land use configuration, with the retail designation and custom lots, includes a local road that would have served the estate lots and single-family lots. The road was planned to extend in a semi-circular, half-: oop fashion on the south side of Dublin Boulevard. A small cul-de-sac was planned ofL the east side of the semi- circular road. The proposed road systern to accommodate proposed u,+es would include a modified semi-circular road from Dublin Boulevard, but would also contain more cu-de-sac streets off of the main access road as well as a small mocified road grid in the approximate center of the Project site. Access to the Happy Talkers site would be provided by wo driveways along Dublin Boulevard. One feature included in the proposed land use configuration is a linear paseo and greenbelt extending south from Dublin Boulevard to Road 2. The purpose of this paseo is for pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Dublin )=Boulevard to a scenic vista. This vista provides a view of the local foothills to the south. City of Dublin Page 4 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Grading The Project Site has been mass graded pursuant to a grading permit issued by the City of Dublin. Additional minor grading would be needed in order to excavate for proposed roadbed and house pads. Trenching and excavation would also be required for underground utilities. Infrastructure As identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR, the Project developer would provide a range of underground utilities to serve the proposed 140 dwellings and the day care facility, including potable and recycled water, wastewater, telecommunication, natural gas and electrical service. Requested entitlements As described above, a number of land use entitlements and approvals are required by the City of Dublin to construct land uses proposed as pz.rt of this Project. These are described in more detail below. General Plan Amendment: Existing land use designz tions on the Project Site include "General Commercial" on the retail commercial area and "Estate Residential" on the residential portions of the Site. The Estate Residential land use designation allows single-family detached dwellings on large lots at a density between 0.01 to 0.08 dwellings per acre. An amendment to redesignate the Project site to "Single Family Residential" is required to implement the proposed Project. This designation allows detached single-family dwellings at a "density range between 0.9 to 6.0 dwellings per acre. A related part of the General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation of the 0.55--acre Happy Talkers site and the adjacent 0.65-acre site held for a possible future fire station to the "Public/Semi-Public" land use designation. Slope areas on the Project Site north of the I-580 freeway and west of the residential area would also be redesignated to the "Open Space" land use designation. Stage 2 Planned Develop. ment Rezoning and Development Plan. The existing Planned Development zoning that permits a mix of retail commercial and estate residential uses would need to be changed to permit single-family and the day care land uses. A Development Agreement that vests development approvals for a specified period of time in return for benefits granted to the City, as mutually agreed by both parties. Issues typically addressed in development agreements include density and intensity of land use, timing and financing of infrastructure, d-3termination of impact fees and obligations to construct public facilities, such as streets and roads. Tentative and Final subdivision maps. Subdivision maps must be approved by the City of Dublin to create individual building lots on the Project site. City of Dublin Page 5 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 0 `o 0 U vY m ro x O p CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 INITIAL STUDY Exhibit 1 REGIONAL LOCATION N 0 2 4 6 8 10 miles E z M U O E z Q J a Q w Q U .Q LL. J a W W U I Q W ' ? 2 U cc N a o? z - - 0 0 a d m ?t q N F- z 2 U z z . Q m ? cc 0LL LL L.L y O W Q J } = Q U fU ? i , 2 U ?. Q Z oc 0 0 Q m M LL C.) LL C%l o W o t J d W N 2 ? U ? Z ? Z z - - 0 0 m M r' i S a 0 m U c .o O N CV H Ci Z C D U y U Z Z Y W r LL ? j U. 0 W Cl) Q J ~ U ~ n U Cn ? w U W LL =0 •'Ranch R S ?gSP??fpL S??? RE .......... J Q J ,a Q W W _ WM LLZ z2 G'3U JQ c o C'3 W U z ? a IVI1N3GIS3hj (?jW by? a O a ~ Q Z ? W W Cl) W Ir J Q ~ t H Q Z H W N 0 W cq w It i i i c c c t x w z J Q J ? (/? Q O W It co M Z N a W Z J Z Cl) W N _H Z D U 2 Z _a J ? m ? 0 LL D LL LL F- 0 W cn O Q ? ~U ~ U co ? U J Usk muui° N 0.. ' • ...... •,..c h R d.. , Schae ?e . w .................. a J J Q Z W a U. w O a? LL Z w J? w J? C3 co Z W Z? y? N a w m 4 C z tnLLy JJ_Z _ cc 2?n LL O U) N w Q w cc z C ? W Z v-, J g cr _ z Q U<. IM 4 h W SINGLE Fq Mrs y9F S, oFNl W ?A< a Z W WV w y O 00 c c c c i i i U C U 0 0 U v m X O M Z Q J >. a U., rr ui W?/? C0 J Q W Z ? o co N X w :) a Z J W 0 0 N O O a d v N o H Z M J o Z Z Q s J cc mw W LL LL LL O W J F V F E5 v) ? 81- DRTS 6k 2g OTC p?Rk F???R LEGEND EXISTING Y. PXFDIl HYDRANT ?R P? 1 ?/ EISNQTARTlWER l 258 asYDR+aup u -o- w• 29j p?? _ r _ rwmue I -f- I B zss 1241 FIRE HYDRANT 1 ? PROPOSED ? IOfIRIE Lar NUMBER 2 \ n. .. ?? - J ?% 1 187 u ?? ,aaoo v 260 ^ RanarwaLIMe SANITARY SEWElt ! e ( \ y v SAIEIlw 5'STIdtlI ORR DRARM lM DRAIN LINE Amt 188 ? E TO L, WATERLINE Tina '' ° A ? FD hC R e 9jC ?.. RONTONOW 35 RIXAINING WALL ?w lm? r - voxl Laxo, n x J1 SECTION A-A SECTION B-B "C RICNT C: q':Y n,mlw 65' RENT OF wAY mx.! ALA„ EXISTING STREET SECTION EXISTING STREET SECTION DUBLIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN BOULEVARD xm 10 SLOT N9r 19 - GENERAL NOTES 1. DWNIA SOIAEFER RANCH LLC V61 SORT CNIC?gW Rx Oman, u 94M (929)6RN19 2. DWMOPR: DsOD,aY wines 9061 PORT CHICAGO NWY RN CONCORD %6m (9!f)61M/19 3. CIVIL N TNEER: ISAiSCN AAS9WA6, DPC u5$ YGWaO VNIEY AYE K (99D G9K96 4. SOILS BIGDRR E438) INCORPORATED 2901 anxaNYav Rare, SATIM SAr RlEAL G9xS3 19U1 L3a•16aD S. WATER 5IAPLY: DIRIIN SAN R.AMON SERVICES DEMU 6. SF'91SERWCE: 11AILIN SAN SERVICES arsTRa 1. DG571W LAND UB: 8T11EP6[OBPflrl {AAI-0d DUJAP.? SDAiE RMLY RSme1rIM (0.46.0 D.W/A7E1 GeRERAL CGWEROdL 8. PROPOSED LANG LL'F: SILE,ic FAMILY RESDa1Nl(D%.O D.QAGE) OPEN SPAR 9. E(ISTING ZONING: Y)V861 RANCH PD. 10. PR(f09D ZONING: SO4Y9PA RANCH PD. 11. CONID.RS; 21cxnv AS 12. ASSESSORS PARCELS: a6SAION401.20 A085*10o9AD2a 13. ARE&' GROSS AREA .41.541 ACRES PARCEL. A AREA .0.65 ACRES PAPn3N AREA.0.I4ATS6 PAR.m8 AREA - 10.72 ACRES PARmC A -195 AD+b 14. PROPOSED OROSS DENSITY 4A9 D.U GARS AC. 15. TOTAL RES. WiS 1V RESIDENTIAL LEAS NANIPIAx LOT Siff 30 70 SF (LDT 16) T@ANN LOT SIZE 6,815 SF DDT 106) AVERAGE LOT SIM a," SF IS THERE ARE NO WSTING TRESS ON THE 17. PCTS TaCSECT1ONMS/.1TTE6TRI SSFCrA10N Kr,THEPTDaeP9AmNW 1E F1NN. MAPS CH TM 111E LANDS (ANDS SEWNON M116PW. "mxNA wrm •_ amnr x 4 SERUM LOT 82 AS NM. NT -T AS xE aD a A0 D' SECTION F -F uc ARmNxNO WALT ]AAl.0E1NL Lrrr ?2 x41 An IR +I I ? L xx RA o-? env yr ,KTANND- ww ••,Lm K-T - 2.N PAD PER PLY!) x'. R1DNf a r?r p Exhibit 6 PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP SOURCE: Isakson & Assoc. Inc., 9-18-2008. CITY OF DUBLIN SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 INITIAL STUDY 1. Project description: Construction of up to 140 single family residential dwellings and a 14,375 square foot day care facility that would replace an approved 5.69-acre retail commercial site, 12 esi ate and 24 single-family residential lots on a 81.3-acre portion of the Schaefer Ranch development ir: West Dublin. The revised development plan also includes minor modifications to the local road system. Land use entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, a Planned Development rezonin,,,, Site Development Review and a subdivision map. 2. Lead agency: City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 3. Contact person: Jeff Baker Senior Planner (925) 833 6610 4. Project location: Southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard (extended) and Schaefer Ranch Read within the Schaefer Ranch development 5. Project sponsor: Discovery Homes 6. General Plan designation: Existing: General Commercial and Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du./ac.) & Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 dwellings per acre) Proposed: Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du./ac.), Public-Semi-Public & open Space 7. Zoning: Existing: PD-Planned Development-General Commercial & Estate l:esidential Proposed: PD-Planned ]development-Single Family Residential, Public-Serli-Public and Open Space 8. Public agency required approvals: • Approval of Amendment to the Gene:-al Plan (City of Dublin) • Approval of PD-Planned Development Stage 1 & Stage 2 rezoning and Development Plan (City of Dublin) • Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for Happy Talkers (City of Dublin) • Approval of Site Development Review (City of Dublin) • Approval of Tentative and Final Subdivision Maps (City of Dublin) City of Dublin Page 12 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Notice of Intent (State Water Resources Control Board) Approval of water and sewer connections (DSRSD) Development Agreement (City of Du 311in) City of Dublin Page 13 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. - Aesthetics - Agricultural - Air Quality Resources - Biological - Cultural Resources Geology Soils Resources - Hazards and - Hydrology Water - Land Use Hazardous Quality Planning Materials - Mineral Resources - Noise - Population Housing - Public Services - Recreation - Transportation Circulation - Utilities Service - Mandatory Systems Findings of Significance Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: _ I find that the proposed Project could not have a sig lificant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration will be prepared. _ I find that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Addendum will be prepared. _ I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Project. A Negative Declaration will be prepared. _I find that although the proposed Project may have a potentially significant effect, or a potentially significant effect unless mitigated, on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. A focused ;supplemental Environmental Impact Report is required, but it must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed. X I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects: a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier City of Dublin Page 14 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the proposed Project. An Addendum to the 1996 Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. Signature: ? W 44&-? :3 0*) Date: 1016t 0t Printed Name: Je-K 1640` For: 6A5 'f- Lod o City of Dublin Page 15 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources 2. lead agency cites in the parenthesis following; each question. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources sh :)w that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "no impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether t.-ie impact is potentially significant, less-than-significant with mitigation, or less-than-significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less-than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less-than-Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tl-e tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analvsis Used. Identity and state v% here they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "less-Than-Significant with Mitigation 1V4easures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from t1e earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. City of Dublin Page 16 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances, etc.). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be ci :ed in the discussion. 8) This is a suggested form and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each agency should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question and the mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. City of Dublin Page 17 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. 1. Aesthetics. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 2, 4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2,4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2,4) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 5) 2. Agricultural Resources Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 2) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use? (Source: 2) 3. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2, 5) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2, 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 18 October 2008 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source :2, 5) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 6) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 2) 4. Biological Resources. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2, 4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Source: 2, 4) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 1, 5) Potentially Significan Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 19 October 2008 f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 1) 5. Cultural Resources. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 150645? (Source: 2) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (2) 6. Geology and Soils. Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Source: 2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking (Source: 2) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source: 2) iv) Landslides? (Source: 2, 4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (2,4) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or similar hazards (Source: 2) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2) Potentially Significam 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/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 20 October 2008 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 2) 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (Source: 2) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Source: 2) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 2, 5) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Sec. 6:5962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 5) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing; or working in the project area? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 5) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 21 October 2008 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Source: 1, 2,4) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2, 3) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source: 1, 2,3) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 3) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 5) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 2) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 2, 3) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 2, 3) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 22 October 2008 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2, 3) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Source: 4) j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (Source: 1) 9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 1, 4) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (1) 10. Mineral Resources. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: l) 11. Noise. Would the proposal result 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? (Source: 2) b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project'? (Source: 2) 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 City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 23 October 2008 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source: 2) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) 12. Population and Housing. Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 2, 3) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 4) 13. Public Services. Would the proposal: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 3) Fire protection Police protection Schools Parks Other public facilities Solid Waste City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 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 Page 24 October 2008 14. Recreation: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 2, 3) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 5) 15. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? (Source: 2) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? (Source: 2) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Source: 2) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? (Source: 2) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (2) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (2) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) (Source: 1) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 25 October 2008 16. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 2, 3) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2, 3) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 2, 3) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 2, 3) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (Source: 2, 3) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (2, 3) g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (2) 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X i X City of Dublin Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch PA 08-005 Page 26 October 2008 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 Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts 1. Dublin General Plan 2. Schaefer Ranch Final EIR 3. Discussion with City staff or service provider 4. Site Visit 5. Other Source XVII. Earlier Analyses a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The following EIR was used in the preparation of this Initial Study: "Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Projec=/General Plan Amendment" WPM Planning Team, April 1996, SCH #95033070. Portions of the environmental setting, project impacts and mitigation measures for this Initial Study refer to environmental information contained in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR which was prepared for the Schaefer Ranch Project of which the proposed Project is a part. The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains mitigation measures which apply to this Project. Specific mitigation measures identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR for potential impacts are referenced in the text of this Initial Study. The Schaefer Ranch EIR is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study pursuant to the standards in CEQA Guideline section 15150. A copy of this EIR is available to the public for review at the Dublin Planning Division, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA during normal business hours. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, :his Initial Study is intended to identify the potential for any new or substantially increased significant impacts on or of City of Dublin Page 27 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 the Project which were not evaluated in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and which would require additional environmental review. City of Dublin Page 28 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Attachment to Initial Study Discussion of Checklist 1. Aesthetics Environmental SettipZ The Schaefer Ranch site contains a mix of rugged ridges and canyons, woodland, open grasslands and rock outcroppings. Pursuant to previouE approvals granted by the City of Dublin, portions of the overall Schaefer Ranch property has been graded and recontoured to accommodate future land uses allowed pursuant to the Dublin General Plan, zoning and other land use entitlements. Although a substantial portion of the Schaefer Ranch property has been graded, other portions have either been preserved as permanent open space or open space preserves have been created on the site to replace special-status species habitat that has been impacted. The 81.3-acre Project Site has been graded as part of the overall mass grading of the Schaefer Ranch project and is generally flat and contains no trees, rock outcroppings or other natural features. The General Plan. land use designation for the south facing slopes included in the Project Site on the north side of I-580 would be changed from "Estate Residential and Retail Commercial" to "Open Space" as part of this Project. Nearby scenic highways include the I-580 freeway immediately south of the Project Site. As a largely rural, undeveloped area, minimal light sources exist on the Project Site. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identifies significant impacts and mitigation measures to reduce anticipated visual resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: Impact 5A identified a significant impact with regard to alteration of the site character. This impact noted extensive landform alteration on the Ranch, including ridgeline removal, filling of canyons and creation of an urban landscape. Mitigation Measure 5A.1 requires approval of a subsequent grading plan for the property that relies on matching natural contours to the extent feasible, limitations on the extent of grading and preservation of existing trees. Mitigation mez.sure 5.A.2 requires approval of a master landscape plan for each phase of the project, with special provisions for visually sensitive areas, use of appropriate plant materials adjacent to natural open space areas, use of plants to screen buildings and development of a long-term landscape maintenance program. • Impact 5B noted a significant impact of proposed Project construction on the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park and 1-580 freeway south of the site. Development of the project site would change the visual character from both of these viewpoints. Mitigation Measure 5.13.1 requires planting of landscaping, placement of berms and use of setbacks to substantially reduce the impact of the Project from the I-580 freeway and the Rowell City of Dublin Page 29 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Ranch facility. Mitigation Measure 5.13.2 requires that future site grading be accomplished to reduce visual impacts. Mitigation Measure 5.B.3 requires the issuance of a conditional use permit by the City for the commercial component of the Project to ensure that future structures are screened from v: ew and signs are controlled. • Impact 5K noted a significant impact related to light and glare from commercial uses onto nearby properties, including parking lot lighting, security lighting and illuminated signs. Mitigation Measure 5.K.1 requires lighting for commercial uses to be pedestrian scaled and to minimize light and glare onto surrcunding areas. These mitigation measurer continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? 1`1I. Approval and implementation of the proposed Project would result in no new or more significant impacts than identified in the 1996 EIR impacts regarding scenic vistas, since no such vistas currently exist on the Site. Approval and implementation of the Project would provide for a new scenic vista at the southerly terminus of the proposed Paseo Trail and Greenbelt. Exhibit 7 is a simulation of the Schaefer Ranch site taken from the Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park, south of the Project Site. The existing (pre-Project condition) shows the Project Site in a natural open space condition with trees and vegetation as seen from some visitors to the Rodeo Park. The row of single-family dwellings depicted on the right side of this Exhibit are part of the larger Schaefer Ranch development and are not part of the proposed Project. These structures would be visible on the left portion of the Exhibit. Although the proposed structures would represent a different condition than the currently approved project that includes a mix of dwellings, a day care facility and a commercial center, the view of the proposed Project would not be significantly noticeable from the Rodeo Park. Although the proposed Happy Talkers structure could be as tall as two stories, the impact of a similar commercial development was envisioned in the 1996 EIR (Impact 513, Rowell Ranch Rodeo Park/I-580 View of Schaefer Basin development. Mitigation Measure 53.3 requires the approval of a conditional use permit for any commercial development on the Project site (Schaefer Ranch). This mitigation measure further requires detailed evaluation of visual concerns as part of the conditional use permit and, in general, commercial structures and parking area are to be screened from view. Signs shall also be controlled, although visibility of signs may be appropriate for visibility. Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic vistas than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including visual resources within state scenic highway? NI. The Project Site has been previously graded as part of the mass grading of the overall Schaefer Ranch property. The proposed Project would include replacing previously approved land uses with similar uses, but at a lower intensity. The proposed Project would include development of the proposed Happy Talkers facility on the 0.55- acre day care parcel identified in the current projE ct as well as reserving a future fire station site. City of Dublin Page 30 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Exhibit 7 shows the Project site prior to development and following completion of mass grading. The Exhibit show that no substantial change to the visual character of the Site from I-580 or Rowell Ranch would occur should he Project be approved and constructed beyond that analyzed in the 1996 EIF;. Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to scenic resources than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. c) Substantially degrade existing visual character or the quality of the site? NI. The proposed Project would include replacing a commercial center and estate residences with single- family dwellings and a day care facility on approximately the same site. The 1996 EIR analyzed the impact of altering the entire SchaefEr Ranch from a rural area to a more urbanized development. The overall type and character of land uses included the proposed Project would likely have fewer aesthetic impacts than were reviewed in the 1996 EIR, since the 5.69-acre commercial development, that would have included large paved parking areas, signs and other features, is Droposed to be replaced with single family dwellings and a smaller day care facility. d) Create light or glare? LS. The Project Site contains minimal light sources and construction of the proposed Project would add 2_dditional light sources in the form of streetlights along the internal semi-circular road as well as new housing and yard lights. New light sources on the Site would also include light fixtures within the parking area of the Happy Talkers facility and lights on and within the day care building. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 5.1.1 and 5.K.1 contained in the 1996 EIR will reduce light and glare impacts related to public facilities and commercial uses by requiring that lighting associated with public facilities be reviewed by the City to ensure that appropriate shields, lenses, orientation are included with lighting fixtures. Mitigation Measure 5.K.1 requires use of pedestrian-type lighting fixtures and orientation of light fixtures away from nearby residential areas. With adherence to these measures, light and glare impacts would be less-than-significant and there would be no new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 31 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 r- a- //,'r,i ?yham' F r ' t. ?..'._ l ? 1 'a4'? [SIMULATION] w-/, oo , Zff z .,?? «... ,.r...wi?-.,-rzr,-m, m<»+.,.isr?»? f:nw*» v ?? den;,.-;w.«asr,?„ 's?u'.vr?aa.zb.?sea,s.Yt*a+ " • ,.n.... ? ., . ,: i i 21 SOURCE: Environmental Vision, October 2004. Exhibit 7 CITY OF DUBLIN VIEW FROM ROWELL RANCH, SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 LOOKING NORTH INITIAL STUDY 2. Agricultural Resources Environmental Setting The Schaefer Ranch, including the Project Site, was historically used for agricultural production and a Williamson Act Land Conservation Contract was in effect on the Schaefer Ranch at the time the 1996 EIR was prepared and certified. Since then, the Williamson Act Contract no longer exists on the Schaefer Ranch and the Ranch is no longer in agricultural production. The Schaefer Ranch site is zoned Planned Development, which is not an agricultural zoning district. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR notes that the Project Site was identified as a farmland with only grazing importance, not prime farmland, due to the relatively steep topography of the Site. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following less-than-significant impacts associated with agricultural resources: Impact 3.5A, discontinuance of on-site agricultural uses, Impact 3.513, loss of on-site farmland and Impact 3.5C, cancellation of a Williamson Act contract on the Site. Impact 3.5D was identified as a potentially significant impact. This impact noted impacts on adjoining agricultural lands adjacent to the Schaefer Ranch. These impacts would include predatory clogs from suburban dwelling, harassing livestock and odor impacts from grazing and livestock keeping onto proposed dwellings. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 3-12 requires disclosure of on-going grazing for future Project residents. Mitigation Measure 3-13 requires enforcement: of leash laws for dogs. Mitigation Measure 3-14 requires disclosure to future homeowners of the presence of flies and odors from agricultural and livestock keeping. Mitigation Measure 3-15 requires installation of fencing around grazing areas. Project Impacts a-c) Convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use or involve other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural us, including conflicts with agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts ? Nl. The Schaefer Ranch Project site has been graded for urban uses pursuant to c--rrent General Plan land use designation and current zoning. No agricultural uses remain on the Site and the Williamson Act Land Conservation Agreement formerly on the Site no longer exists. No new or more significant impacts would therefore occur with regard to agricultural resources beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The Project applicant will be required to provide notifications to future homeowners regarding protection of livestock (Mitigation Measure 3-12) and the presence of nearby agricultural operations (Mitigation Measure 3-14). Appropriate fencing to protect on-going livestock grazing is also required per Mitigation Measure 3-15. City of Dublin Page 33 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 3. Air Quality Environmental Setting The Project is within the Amador Valley, a part of the Livermore sub-regional air basin distinct from the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Livermore sub-air basin is surrounded on all sides by high hills or mountains. Si gnificant breaks in the hills surrounding the air basin are Niles Canyon and the San Ramon Valley, which extends northward into Contra Costa County. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures to reduce anticipated air quality impacts from the development of the Schaefer Ranch. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: Impact 12A identified a significant impact with regard to temporary increases in dust and particulate emissions during earthmoving operations. Mitigation Measure 12.A1 requires implementation of dust control measures during site grading earth moving and excavation operations to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Such measures include but are not limited to frequent watering of graded areas, limiting speeds of construction vehicles on the site and sweeping of public streets • Impact 12B found that emissions from construction vehicles would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation measure 12.13.1, which requires limited idling of construction equipment and reduction of grading activities during period of poor air quality, would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. • Impact 12 D identified a significant impact from regional pollutant emissions in the form of increased vehicle trips to and from the Project. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 12.D.1, implement control measures that are specified in attainment plans, and 12.D.2, provide physical facilities in the Project design would reduce regional emissions but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact was therefore found to be significant and -inavoidable. • Impact 12E noted a potentially significant impact with regard to emission of local carbon monoxide. Based on the analysis in the EIR, emission of carbon monoxide was found to be below threshold levels and was z less-than-significant impact. • Impact 12F, on-site fuel combustion, was identifiE d as a potentially significant impact and adherence to Mitigation Measure 121.1 will reduce this to a less- than-significant impact. This mitigation would re Strict on-site fireplaces or stoves to either gas burning units or units that have been EPA-approved. Conventional open hearth fireplaces are not allowed. • Impact 12G included a significant impact from miscellaneous dust sources leaving the site. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 12.G.1, that requires City of Dublin Page 34 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 adherence to the Bay Area Air Quality Management fugitive dust rules, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Project is required to adhere to these mitigation measures and current air quality regulations enforced by the Bay Area Air Qualit-, Management District (BAAQMD). Project Impacts a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. The BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan is based on population and growth assumptions projected by the Association of Bay Area Governm?nts (ABAG). For the proposed Project, the applicant is requesting a change in the ype of residential units, elimination of the 5.69-acre commercial complex, a:id addition of Happy Talkers day care center. As noted in the Population section of this Initial Study (see Section 10), under the proposed Project, the overall number of dwellings on the overall Schaefer Ranch site is 406 units which would be less than the project originally approved by the City of Dublin and analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 units). Vehicle trips associated with the proposed Happy Talkers facility would be the same as analyzed in the 1996 EIR (see analysis in the Transportation and traffic section below). The proposed Project would therefore be g'nerally consistent with the Clean Air Plan and this would not represent a substantial change to the project analyzed in the previous EIR. No new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result regarding this topic. b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? NI. The 1996 EIR identified regional pollutant emissions as Significant and Unavoidable impacts. The proposed Project proposes residential development and day care facility within the Schaefer Ranch area in a manner consistent with the previous approvals o:a the site and within the parameters of the 1996 EIR. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Table 2 within the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study demonstrates that the total daily vehicle trips would be less under the proposed Project than the project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Therefore, regional pollutant emissions from the proposed Project would same or less and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as identified in 1996 EIR. In terms of construction-level air quality impacts, as conditions of grading plan approval by the City of Dublin, the applicant is required to have their grading contractor undertake dust and wind-borne erosion control methods listed in Mitigation Measure 12G.1 of the 1996 EIR, including covering of stockpiled material, watering of graded sites and similar methods to meet BAAQMD standards. In terms of operational-level air quality impacts, the number of daily vehicle trips are anticipated to be less under the proposed Project than the original, 1996 project as demonstrated in Table 2 contained in the Traffic and Transportation section of this Initial Study. Therefore, air quality emissions would be same or less than 1996 project. Since the certification of the 1996 EIR, the issue of the contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change has become a more prominent issue of concern in this State City of Dublin Page 35 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 as evidence by the passage of AB 32 in 2006. There is no current statute, regulation or case law which requires the analysis of greenhouse gases and climate change under CEQA. The topic of the Project's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change was not analyzed in the 1996 EIR. Since the 1996 EIR has been certified, the determination of whether greenhouse gases and climate change needs to be analyzed for this proposed Project is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (See discussion under Section XVII Earlier Analysis above). Greenhouse gas and climate change is not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete" and shows a new significant impact. (CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a)(3).) Greenhouse gas and climate change impacts is not new information that was nct known or could not have been known at the time the 1996 EIR was certified. The issue of climate change and greenhouse gases was widely known prior to 1996. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change impacts was being extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analysis of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the impact of greenhouse gases on clim<<te change was known at the time of certification of the 1996 EIR. Under CEQA ,,tandards, it is not new information that requires analysis in a supplemental EIR or negative declaration. No environmental analysis on the Project's impact; on this issue is required under CEQA. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? The proposed Project would result in a net decrease of 60 single-family dwellings from the total number of dwellings allowed on the Schaefer Ranch under the current General Plan and Planned Development zoning. However, within the context of the larger overall Schaefer Ranch development, regional pollutant emissions, as identified in Impact 12 contained in the 1996 EIR, would still remain as a significant and unavoidable impact. d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. The proposed Project is a typical residential development project and does not include manufacturing or similar land uses, no objectionable odors would be created. Although the Project would include a day care faci..ity that would be occupied by children, there are no nearby generators of odors, such as manufacturing uses. No impact would therefore result. 4. Biological Resources Environmental Setting The overall Schaefer Ranch site contains a number of biologically important biological communities, including annul grasslands, northern coastal scrub, coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland, freshwater emergency wetland and stock ponds. The Schaefer Ranch has been mass graded to allow for urbar. development, although City of Dublin Page 36 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 portions of the Ranch have been preserved and/or reconstructed as riparian habitat, oak tree preserve areas and other open space areas to protect biological resources. The Project Site within the Schaefer Ranch has been included in the completed mass grading operation and therefore contains no trees, creeks or other natural features. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified that the Project Site contained a number of significant biological resources, including a stand of coast live oak frees, and cost live oak/bay riparian vegetation mixed with annual grasslands. The 1996 EIR contains a number of impacts and mitigation measures regarding biological resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: • Impact 6C identified loss of approximately 245 acres of grasslands as a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.C.1 required reseeding of disturbed grasslands with native grasses. Preconstruction surveys for presence of burrowing owl was also mandated as part of this measure. Impact 6D noted a loss of oak woodlands and otl er heritage trees as part of the development proposal, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 6.D.1 requires completion of a tree survey before grading and retention of heritage class trees (18-inch diameter at 20 inches above grade) to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure 6.D.2 requires implementation of protection measures for trees that are to be preserved. Mitigation Measure 6.D.3 requires planting of replacement trees on the site at a ratio of 3 replacement trees for each 1 tree lost. • Impact 6E identifies; secondary impacts to native plants and wildlife, including "escape" on non-native plants into the environment and impacts to native wildlife of domestic pets. Mitigation Measures 6.171.1 requires Project landscape plans to emphasize use of native plant materials. Mitigation Measure 6.E.2 requires enforcement of Dublin's leash law. Even with adherence to these measures, Impact 6E would remain significant and unavoidable. • Impact 6F found that runoff of herbicide sprays could enter natural plant communities and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 61.1 requires restrictions of z pplication of herbicides will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Project will be required to adhere to these biological resource mitigation measures. Project Impacts a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? NI. The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of special status plant and wildlife species that could occur on the Schaefer Ranch property. Specifically, the Project Site included City of Dublin Page 37 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 stands of coast live oaks and coast live oak/bay riparian vegetation along with annual grasslands. Since certification of the 1996 and approval of the original land use entitlements, the entire Project Site has been graded to accommodiLte future buildings and roads. As required by Mitigation Measures 6.D.1, 6.D.2, and 6.D.3, surveys for sensitive tree species were completed, tree protection measure provided for trees to be preserved and replacement trees provided for as part of proposed Project landscaping. As a result of mass grading of the entire Schaefer Ranch property, no plant or wildlife species or habitats exist on the Site. As required 1=y Mitigation Measure C.6.1, a preconstruction survey was completed for burrowing owl prior to commencement of grading activities. Therefore, approval and construction of the Project would not have new or more significant impacts on candidate, se:lsitive or special-status plants or wildlife or their respective habitats beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands? NI. No creeks, streams, wetlands or waters of the US or waters of the state were identified on the Site in the 1996 EIR. There would be no impacts with respect to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands. No new or more significant impacts would therefore result with regard to riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities or federally protected wetlands than were analyzed in the previous EIR. d) Interfere substantially with movement of native fish o1, wildlife species? NI. No creeks or streams exist currently on the Site so there would be no interference with native fish migration. The proposed design of the Site also includes an unfenced paseo that extends through the Site that would allow wildlife migration. No new or more significant impacts would therefore result with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources? NI. There would be no conflicts and no impacts with any local policies regarding biological resources should this Project be approved and constructed. Any trees formerly growing on the site were removed prior to or as part of the mass grading of Schaefer Ranch. f) Conflict with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,, or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The Project area is not located within the boundaries of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. 5. Cultural Resources Environmental Setting A cultural resources survey of the Schaefer Ranch was undertaken as part of the 1996 EIR. Prehistoric findings were limited to one isolated chert flake and a possible bedrock City of Dublin Page 38 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 mortar which were not located on the Project Site. These finds were not conclusively determined to be of prehistoric origins. The Project Site is vacant and contains no structures. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR contains a number of mitigation measures regarding cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures. Applicable impacts and mitigation measures include: Impact 14A identifies a potential impact with regard to prehistoric resources that may not have been identified in previous cultural resource surveys of the Schaefer Ranch. This impact would be reduced tc a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1 that regi:.ires work to stop within a 100- foot radius of the discovery of any cultural resources and for the City to prepare a work plan consistent with CEQA Guidelines to ensure that such resource is properly evaluated and treated. If necessary, morutoring of this site by a qualified archeologist may be required. This mitigation measure will continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resource or human remains? NI. No structures exist on the Site so there would be no impact with regard to historic resources. b-d) Cause a substantial adverse impact or destruction to a,cheological, paleontological resources or human remains? NI. The Project Site hz.s been mass graded and no significant archeological, prehistoric, paleontological or Native American remains were discovered. Minimal additional grading would be required for building foundations and trenching for on-site ut.lities. Based on a discussion with the project representative (pers. comm. D. Chen, 5/21/08) the depth of such additional grading would be minor, approximately 10 feet into an existing 100- foot deep fill area, and would not exceed the depihs of completed grading activities. Therefore, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 14.A.1, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regarI to this topic than was analyzed in the 1995 EIR. 6. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted the presence of several soil and geot?chnical conditions on the Schaefer Ranch Site. Colluvial soils, which are composed of clay and silty clay are found in ravines and swales leading to main stream channels. Alluvial deposits are generally located in a drainage course in the northern portion of the Ranch. A large portion of the Ranch was underlain by historic landsides. City of Dublin Page 39 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 As noted in the Project Description portion of this Initial Study, the Schaefer Ranch has been substantially graded and landslide areas remediatod. The Schaefer Ranch does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone). Major active faults in the region that influence earthquake susceptibility include the Pleasanton, San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville Faults. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified a number of impacts and mitigation measures related to soils and geology. The following are applicable impacts and mitigation measures that will continue to apply to the current Project: Impact 9A identified a significant impact related to mass grading of the Ranch, which would have the effect of removing natural vegetation and wildlife habitat as well as possibly causing landslides and slope failures. Mitigation Measure 9.A.1 requires City approval of a grading plan consistent with City standards and that also would reduce visual impacts and satisfy geotechnical requirements. Mitigation Measure 9.A.2 requires that grading activities be balanced to eliminate the need for off-haul of material. • Impact 9B identified a significant impact with regard to slope stability, since much of the pre-Project soil conditions exhibited the presence of historic landslides. Mitigation Measures 9.13.1 through 8 would reduce landslide and slope stability impacts to a less-than significant level. These measures require remediaton of historic landslides, control of surface and subsurface drainage, removal of soils that are susceptible to "soil creep," establishment of setbacks from landslide hazard areas, use of appropriate engineering designs to ensure slope stability and formation of a Geologic Hazard Abatement District to ensure long-term maintenance of slope areas. Impact 9C found a significant impact with regard to erosion impacts of grading activities off of the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.C.1 through 3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring adherence to a site-specific erosion control plan, implements ag erosion control measures during construction and incorporating permanent erosion control measures into the development, including creek bank revetmen :s and slope seeding. • Impact 9D identified an impact with regard to fill settlement. The 41.5-acre site has already been filled consistent with Mitigation Measures 9.D.1 through 9.D.5. • Impact 9E identified an impact related to expansive and corrosive soils. Expansive soils could damage building foundations and other improvements due to shrinking and swelling of clay soils. Corro>ive soils could impact underground utilities, foundations and concrete in contact with soil. Mitigation Measures 9.E.1 through 3 are included in the EIR to reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. These measures require geotechnical investigations for City of Dublin Page 40 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 shrink-swell potential, special foundation design: to deal with expansive soil and control of moisture content to minimize soil shrinking and swelling. • Impact 9F identified an impact related to seismic hazards, including strong ground shaking and possible surface rupture. Secondary seismic effects could include landsliding, liquefaction and soil lurching;. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 91.1 through 3 would reduce seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level. These measures include completing detailed analyses of seismic hazards for individual development projects to evaluate the effects of groundshaking and rupture as well as secondary effects and a determination of specific construction techniques to minimize these effects. The mitigations also require incorporation of earthquake resistant design for all structures and mapping of inactive faults in the Project area and. incorporation of remedial measures for inactive faults on Project structures. Project Impacts a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? NI. The potential for impacts related tc ground-based seismic hazards, specifically severe ground shaking, ground rupture or other ground failure was addressed in the 1996 EIR (Impact 9F) and adherence to Mitigation Measures 91.1 through 3 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level. To comply with these mitigation measures, site-specific soils and geology reports were completed by Alan Kropp & Associates (1997) and ENGEO (2004). The reports include specific construction measures to minimize groundshaking, ground failure and landslides that have been followed for previous grading and will be followed for future construction on the Site. These reports are hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study a:-id are available for review at Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. These measures continue to apply to this portion of the Schaefer Ranch development project. There would therefore be no new or more significant impacts with regard to seismic impacts than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? NI. Refer to Hydrology section 3a for a discussion of this topic:. c,d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, landslide or collap;;e? NI. The 1996 EIR noted Impact 9E, expansive and corrosive soils, within the Schaefer Ranch area. The 1996 EIR determined that with adherence to Mitigation Measures 91.1 through 3, impacts related to unstable and expansive soils, including lateral spreading, liquefaction and similar hazards would be less-than-significant. Similarly, Adherence to Mitigation Measures 9.13.1 through 3 will reduce impacts related to landslide and slope stability to a less-than-significant level. With adherence to these and other soil and geology impacts containE-d in the 1996 EIR, there would be no new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 41 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. Proposed residences on the site would be connected to sanitary sewers provided by DSRSD, so there would be no impacts with regard to septic systems. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR noted that several areas of the Schaefer Ranch property was found to contain hazardous and potentially hazardous materials, including areas contaminated with petrochemicals associated with vehicle storage and maintenance, insecticide residue from agricultural operations, refuse disposal sites and several power poles and transformers that could contain PCBs. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified one impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. Impact 15A found that the potential presence of hazardous materials on the Ranch property in close proximity to planned residential and similar uses would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 15.A.1 through I are included in the EIR to reduce this impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures call for removal of hazardous materials, including electrical transformers with potentially hazardous materials, abandonment and destruction of on-site well,, and additional hazardous materials analysis if found on the Ranch during construction. These measures continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? NI. There would be no impact with regard to transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, since the proposed Project involves construction. of a residential development Project. Although a normal and customary amount of paint, solvents, lawn care chemicals and similar substances would be used and stored on the Project Site, these would not be used, stored or transported in any significant quantities. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environn ent through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? NI. The Project Site has been graded and filled with approximately 100 feet of fill materiel. Prior to the grading operati:)n, the applicant was required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 of the 1996 EIR to remove hazardous materials from the site, remove above-ground electrical power transformer, close existing wells and septic system facilities and assess other hazardous materials on the Site. A site investigation of the Project site was completed by E NGEO, Inc. to fulfill this mitigation measure on June 19, 2008. This letter is rereby incorporated by reference into this document and is available for review at Dublin Civic Center during normal business hours. No existing dwellings exist on the Site that could release hazardous materials into the atmosphere. No new or more significant impacts with regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 42 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 c) Emit hazardous materials or handle hazardous materials or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI. No public schools exist or are planned within one-quarter mile of the Project Site, based on the document entitled "Demographic Study and Facilities Plan," published by the Dublin Unified School District in October 2004 (Shilts Consulting, Inc.), although a private day care facility would be located on the Project Site. Adherence to mitigation measures to remove any hazardous materials on the Site, as required by Mitigation Measure 15.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR will ensure that there would be no impact with regard to this topic. There is therefore no new or more significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? NI. The Project Site is not listed by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control as an identified hazardous site as of May 22, 2008. There is therefore no new or more significant impact with regard to this topic than was analyzed in the previous EIR. e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI. The Project Site is not located near any public airport or private airstrip. No impacts would therefore occur. g) Interference with an emergency response or evacuation }plan? NI. The proposed Project would include construction of a residential Project on private land. No emergency evacuation plan would be affected since no public or private roadways would be blocked. No impact would therefore result. h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? NI. The Project area is located in a substantially urbanizing area, althougr. wildlands do exist near the Project site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.2 through 7.3.5 contained in the 1996 EIR will apply to the Project to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require installation of a irrigated border of fire-resistant vegetation with a minimum width of 30 feet, provision of diced firE breaks, use of fire resistant construction materials, provision of adequate emergency access and, as a condition of tentative subdivision map approval, require a fuel management plan to reduce the fire fuel load. With adherence to these measure 3, which will be required following the requested land use entitlements, no rew or more significant impacts with regard to wildland fire have been identified than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 43 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 8. Hydrology and Water Quality Environmental Setting Local surface water The Schaefer Ranch area drains into two major regional watersheds: Palomares Creek and Dublin Creek. These two are divided by Skyline Ridge The western portion of Schaefer Ranch, including the Project Site, is located within the jurisdictions of Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7). Zone 7 provides maintenance of regional drainage facilities within this portion of Alameda County. The eastern portion of the Ranch is located within Zone 2. Existing drainage facilities As part of recent construction on the overall Schaefer Ranch site, the Project developer has received approval from the City of Dublin, Zone 7 and Alameda County for a Master Drainage Plan for the Ranch (pers. comm. Doug Chen, 5/22/08). Pursuant to the approved Master Drainage Plan, a number of drainage facilities have been constructed on the Ranch, including but not limited to underground drainage lines, swales and water quality ponds. Surface water quality Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDEIS), which controls the discharge of pollutants to -water bodies from point and rLon-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 identif: ed in the San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), and the entire program relies on the implementation of Best Management Practices to limit pollutant contact with stormwater runoff at its source and to remove pollutants before they are discharged into receiving waters. The California Stormwater Quality Task Force has published a series of Best Management: Practices handbooks for use in the design of source control; and treatment programs to achieve the water quality objectives identified by the Basin Plan for the beneficial uses of surface waters, groundwaters, wetland and marshes. City of Dublin Page 44 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Groundwater recharge The Project Site is not located near any major creek and has been filled with approximately 100 feet of earth material that precludes groundwater recharge. The Project Site is not designated for groundwater recharge purposes under the Dublin General Plan. Flooding The most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map for the westE?rn portion of Dublin Community Panel #060705 0001B) does not include the Schaefer Ranch property. However, based on discussions with the City of Dublin Public Works Department (F. Navarro, 5/23/08), the topographic elevation of the proposed Project Site is out of the 100-year flood plain. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified the following impacts and mitigation measures with regard to flooding, drainage and water quality. Impact 8.1A noted potentially significant impacts with regard to grading and related impacts on drainage. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. This measure called for preparation of a master drainage plan for the whale of the Schaefer Ranch property, provision of flood control improvemen=s on and off the site, coordination with other applicable agencies and ensuring design is consistent with applicable drainage design standards. Impact 8.2A noted that increased sedimentation would occur with development of the Schaefer Ranch and would be a potentially significant impact. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 8.2.1, 8.2.2 and 8.2.4 would reduce sediment impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures require preparation and submittal of a water quality report to the City of Dublin, DSRSE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Zone 7 that includes specific construction techniques to ensure that less-than-significant impacts would result to surface bodies of water. The mitigation measures also require the abandojunent and sealing of existing on-site wells and septic tanks and provisions for ensuring water quality for any open reservoirs located on the Ranch. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the Project. The Project is also subject to the requirements under NPDES/SWPPP regulations. Project Impacts a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ;-equirements? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed Project would add impervious surfaces to the Project site that would increase the amount of stormwater runoff and potentially degrade water quality. This impact was analyzed in the 1996 EIR as Impact 8.2A and, with adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.2.1, this impact was reduced to a less-than- significant level. The Project applicant has completed and submitted the water quality report required by this measure (Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division, City of Dublin Page 45 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 6/2/08). The Project applicant will be required to continue adherence to this Mitigation Measure for final grading operations on the Project Site. As part of the approval of the grading plan and Me ster Drainage Plan, the City of Dublin required the Project developer to meet current surface water quality standards included in the Alameda County Clean Water Program (pers. comm. Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/23/ 08). Any subsequent grading activities will also be required to adhere to 1996 EIR Mitigation Measures and surface water quality standards enforced by the City of Dublin. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts witfL regard to water quality standards have been identified in this Initial Study than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? NI. No impacts are anticipated with regard to depletion of groundwater resources, since the proposed water source for this Project would rely on surface water supplies from DSRSD and not on local groundwater supplies. No local wells would be used to supply water to the proposed Project. The Project Site is not designated as a groundwater recharge area as part of the Dublin G eneral Plan. c) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial siltation or erosion would occur? NI. Although new impervious surfaces would be added to the Project site to accommodate new dwellings, roadways, driveways and similar surfaces, this impact was analyzed in die 1996 EIR (see Impact 8.1A, Grading and Impacts on Drainage). With adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1, which requires preparation of a Master Drainage Plan and Mitigation Measure 8.1.6 that requires installation of erosion improvements for unlined drainage channels,, this impact was reduced to a less-than-significant level. The 41.5-acre Project Site has been mass graded with approvals of a grading plan and in conformity with the City approved Master Drainage Plan. It is anticipated that additional fine grading would be required to creates individual building pads and related improvements on the Project Site. Subsequent grading activities on the Site will be required to conform to the approved Master Drainage Plan and all other mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR to ensure that no significant alterations to drainage patterns, stream courses or that significant amounts of siltation or erosion would occur. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts witf. regard to this topic is therefore anticipated than was analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantially alter drainage patterns or substantially increase surface water runoff that would result in flooding, either on or off the project site? NI. The Project Site has already been graded based on a mass grading plan and Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other agencies as required by Mitigation Measure 8.1.1. Additional fine grading that would occur will be rE quired to conform to Mitigation Measure 8.1.1 to ensure that no additional impacts would occur to drainage patterns or stormwater runoff. The developer is also required to adhere to City of Dublin Page 46 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requiring the Project developer to install flood control facilities, and Mitigation Measure 8.1.5, that requires the developer to undertake additional off-site flooding potential. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study regarding drainage patterns and runoff than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e) Create stormwater runoff that would exceed the capacity of drainage systems or add substantial amounts of polluted runoff? NI. The issue cif exceeding capacities of drainage systems or increasing the amount of polluted runoff was addressed in the 1996 EIR by Impact 8.1A. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 8.1.2 requires the Project developer to plan for an install necessary flood control and drainage facilities to minimize downstream flooding, including installation of on-site detention facilities. Appropriate storm drain and flood control facilities have been incorporated into the Master Drainage Plan approved by the City of Dublin and other regulatory agencies. The Master Drainage Plain includes the proposed Project. The Project is also been required by the City of Dublin to incorporate Best Management Practices to minimize runoff of pollu-:ed drainage (pers. comm., Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 5/23/08). Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to drainage s-, stems or polluted runoff not analyzed in the 1996 EIR would occur. f) Substantially degrade water quality? NI. This issue and has been addressed above in item "a." g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mopped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. The Project site lies outside of the 100-year flood plain and no impacts would occur with regard to placing additional housing units within a 100-year flood plain (pers. comm., Frank Navarro, 5/23/08). h, i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard boundary structures that impeded or redirect flood flow, including dam failures? NI. Refer to item "g," above. No impacts with regard to hazards from dam failure were identified in the 1996 EIR. j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Project area is located well inland from San Francisco Bay or other major 5odies of water to be impacted by a tsunami or seiche. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 913.1 through 8 contained in the 1996 EIR addressed impacts related to protection from landslide and mudflows. The ENGEO soils report addressed the potential for landslide on the Site and recommended steps to reduce this potential impact to a less-than- significant level. These steps were incorporated into the mass grading plan for the overall Schaefer Ranch site as required by the Miti€;ation Measure and No new or more significant impacts than was analyzed in the Drevious EIR are therefore anticipated with regard to landslides and mudflows. City of Dublin Page 47 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 9. Land Use and Planning Environmental SettinZ The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no structures. Project Impacts a) Physically divide an established community? NI. The Project Site is vacant and is part of the larger Schaefer Ranch planned community, currently under construction. There are no dwellings or residents on the Site. No impact would therefore occur should the Project be approved. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? LS. The proposed Project would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of "General Commercial" on the retail commercial area and "Estate Residential" on the residential portions of the Site. Neither of these designations allow the type and density of land use envisioned as part of the Project. The applicants have requested an amendment to the Dublin General Plan to redesignate the Project site to a combination of "Single Family Residential" "Open Space" and "Public-Semi-Public" land use designations. This Amendment is required to implement the proposed Project. This designation allows detached single-family dwellings at a density range between 0.9 to 6.0 dwellings per acre. The "Public-Semi-Public" land use classification would be applied to the Happy Talkers site and reserved for a future fire station site. This designation allows for a day care centers. If this application is approved, the Project would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan, since it would be consistent with the land uses and the density range specified in the General Plan. No other land use plan or policy conflicts would exist and there would be a less-than-significant impact with regard to this topic. c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. The Project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. See section 4 "f" of this Initial Study. There are no impacts with regard to this Project. 10. Mineral Resources Environmental Setting The 1996 EIR identifies the presence of no significant mi:zeral deposits in the Schaefer Ranch area. City of Dublin Page 48 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Project Impacts a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. The 1996 EIR does not indicate that significant deposits of minerals exist in the Project area, so no im,7acts 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 hese uses. Regulatory setting The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies the following primary sources of noise in Dublin: traffic noise from freeways and major roadw<<ys within the community and noise generated by the BART line adjacent to the I-580 freeway. The Noise Element identifies the following maximum noise exposure levels by land use type. Table 1. City of Dublin Land Use/Noise Compatibility Standards (decibels) Land Use Normally 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 I 65-70 70+ Office/ Retail 70 or less - 70-75 r- 75-80 80+ Industrial 70 or less 70-75 75+ -- Source: Dublin General Plan Noise Element, Table 9-1 The City of Dublin also enforces an interior noise standard of 45 decibels for residential dwellings. The major sources of noise near the Schaefer Ranch site is traffic noise from the I-580 freeway, immediately south of the Site. The 1996 EIR estimated that the 60 dB Ldn noise contour extended approximately 1000 feet north of the centerline of the freeway Schaefer Ranch EIR The following noise impacts and mitigation measures are contained in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 49 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 • Impact 11A identified construction noise generated by grading of the Schaefer Ranch site as a significant impact. Mitigati on Measure 11.A.1 requires that existing residents near the Schaefer Ranch be moved off-site during construction, or that grading activities be phased to limit duration of grading. Impact 11B noted that future residents on a portion of the Schaefer Ranch site (the Schaefer Basin, which is the location of the current proposed Project) would be impacted by noise from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, by on-site vehicle noise. To mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level, Mitigation Measure 11.13.1 requires each Project developer to prepare and submit a precise noise control plan identifying how City noise exposure levels will be met, including but not limited to building treatments, construction of noise barriers and other techniques. Mitigation Measure 11.B.2 required a redesign of the Project where anticipated noise levels would exceed 70 dB Ldn. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the current Project. Project Impacts a) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable stanc'ard? NI. Development of proposed Project could expose future residents anc. visitors on the Site to significant noise levels from I-580 and, to a lesser extent, Dublin Boulevard. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure 11.13.1, the Project applicant has submitted a detailed noise study prepared by Charles Salter As3ociates in August 2005. This report is hereby incorporated by reference into this Initial Study document. This report is available for review at the Dublin Community Development Department during normal business hours. The 2005 report concludes that, with the regarding of the Project Site, all future residential lots adjacent to the I-580 Freeway would have exterior noise exposure levels of 60 decibels on the CNEL noise scale, consistent with the City's Noise Element. The Happy Talkers day care facility also would have exterior noise exposure levels of 60 decibels on the CNEL noise scale, consistent with the City's Noise Element for a day care/ school use Based on adherence to Mitigation Measure 11.13.1, residents and visitors would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of City standard and no new or more significant impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration oV groundborne noise levels? NI. The proposed Project would include normal construction methods and techniques typical of a single-family subdivision. Similarly, the subdivision would not include operational elements that would result in significant groundborne vibration levels, so no impacts are anticipated with regard to vibration. Therefore, no new or more significant impacts would result with regard to vib -ation than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. City of Dublin Page 50 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 c) Substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels? NI. The 1996 EIR noted that on-site traffic noise would be a minor component of noise on the Site (Impact 11A.). Increases in off-site noise as a result of traffic generated on the Schaefer Ranch was identified as a less-than-significant level (see Impact 11E). The proposed Project, if approved, would reduce the number of vehicle trips and associated vehicle noise on the Site (see Section 15 of this Initial Study, Transportation) Therefore no new or more signific<nt impacts would result than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? NI. Grading and con3truction activities on the Project Site are limited to weekdays between 7:30 am and 5 pm by Mitigation Measure 11.A.1 contained in the 1996 EIR. No new or more significant impacts have been identified in this Initial Study than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or }private airstrip, would the project expose people to excessive noise levels? NI. The Schaefer Ranch site is not located near any public or private airports or airstrips and no impact would result with regard to this topic. 12. Population and Housing Environmental Setting The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Council of Governments organization responsible for preparing and tracking population and demographic changes within the Bay Area region anticipates that the Bay Area will continue to grow at a steady rate. Factors contributing to this growth include a favorable climate, recreational activities, top universities and career opportunities. Over the next 20 years, the population is expected to increase to more than 8 million persons, a 16% increase over the current (2007) population. Population increases are expected to be primarily due tc increases in births and longer life expectancies rather than significant in-migration. Land uses shown in the existing City of Dublin General Plan have been included in ABAG population and growth projections for the Cib, and region. Schaefer Ranch EIR The Schaefer Ranch EIR identified less-than-significant or a beneficial impacts with regard to population growth (Impact 2A), housing stock (Impact 2B), affordable housing (Impact 2C), employment (Impact 2I)), jobs/ housing balance (Impact 2E), sales tax revenues (Impact 2F), property tax revenues (Impact 2G) and competitive impacts (Impact 2H). No mitigation measures regarding population or housing impacts were included in the 199 EIR. Project Impacts a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either lirectly or indirectly? NI. Approval of the proposed Project would increase the permanent population on City of Dublin Page 51 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch Project. However, the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the Project be approved (406 dwellings) would be fewer analyzed in the 1996 EI: (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). No impact with regard to substantial population growth is therefore anticipated and no :new or more significant impacts regarding population growth have been identified in this initial study than were identified in the 1996 EIR. b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. The Project Site is vacant and no housing units or F eople would be displaced should the Project be approved. 13. Public Services Environmental SettipZ The following provide essential services to the commun.ty: • Fire Protection. Fire protection services are provided by the Alameda County Fire Department. The Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical response, fire prevention, education, building inspection services and hazardous material control. The nearest station is Station No 16, located at 7494 Donohue Drive in western Dublin. • Police Protection: Police and security protection is provided by the Dublin Police Services Department, headquartered at the Dublin Civic Center. • Schools. The Dublin Unified School District provides K-12 educational services. • Library Services: Alameda County Library service. • Maintenance. Maintenance of streets, roads and other governmental facilities is the responsibility of the City of Dublin. The City and related service providers, including the Dublin Unified School District, also charge impact fees on new development, which is generally collected at the time building permits are issued. Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following imF acts regarding public services: • Impact 7.3C identified a significant impact with regard to Fire Department emergency response times to the Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 6 will reduce this impact :o a less-than-significant level. These measures require reservation of a fire station site and staffing of a new fire station in western Dublin, imposition of fire protE'ction measures on future City of Dublin Page 52 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 subdivision maps in the Schaefer Ranch and planting of fire resistant vegetation surrounding dwellings on the Schaefer Ranch. Impact 7.3D identified a significant impact related to meeting response times to the Schaefer Ranch site by emergency vehicles. Individual developments in the Schaefer Ranch will. be required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 and 7.3.8 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant le- el. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 requires dedication of a fire station in West Dublin that would contain emergency medical response equipment. Mitigation Measure 7.3.8 requires an educational program to residents focusing on em urgency medical response times. • Impact 7.3E notes a significant impact with regard to wildland-structural fires, that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.2 - 7.3.5. This measure requires planting of fire-resistant vegetation between buildings and wildland areas, provide for emergency vehicle access and discing of fire breaks. • Impact 7.3F identified a significant impact with regard to lack of fire hydrants in the Schaefer Ranch area. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.3, that requires installation of DSRSD-approved fire hydrants within the Schaefer Ranch development. Impact 7.3G noted an impact with regard to an increase of combustible materials on the site. Mitigation Measures 7.3.1- 7.3.4 require measures such as the use of appropriate materiels as part of future construction, including Class A roof material and non-combustible walls, such as stucco, installation of interior fire sprinklers and similar techniques, to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. • Impact 7.3H noted fire impacts with regard to bu:-ning of vegetation on the Schaefer Ranch that would be significant. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.5 requires that landscape plans for the Project excli; de high combustion plant species in favor of fire retardant plants. The measure also requires approval of a fuel modification plan to reduce fuel load adjacer.t to future houses and that perimeter landscaping be irrigated. With adhererce to this measure, Impact 7.3H is less-than-significant. • Impact 7.31 identified an impact with regard to st-eet and road access into the Schaefer Ranch site for emergency vehicles and to maneuver on the Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.3.6 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring roads within the Schaefer Ranch meet fire department design standards, including appropriate road surfaces, maximum gradients, length of cul-de-sac roads and similar items. • Impact 7.3J noted potential impacts with regard to life safety impacts with approval of the Schaefer Ranch project, including allowing sufficient time for occupants to escape buildings in the event of an emergency. Adherence to City of Dublin Page 53 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Mitigation Measure 7.3.1, 7.3.7 and 7.3.8 reduces this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure 7.3.1 is described above. Mitigation Measures 7.3.7 and .8 require implementation of an education and self-inspection program for future residents to allow sprinklers to remain in place and implementation of a Community Education Program focusing on medical emergencies. • Impact 7.4A identifies a significant impact with regard to an increase in the number of calls for service based on development of the Schaefer Ranch and the need for additional police staffing and equipment:. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.4.1 and .2 reduced these impacts to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the Schaefer Ranch developer to prepare a budget strategy to increase police staffing and equipment to serve tre Project and that adequate security services can be provided to regional trail3 in the area by East Bay Regional Park District. • Impact 7.413 notes a significant impact with regard to site security in terms of visibility of dwellings and police response times. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.4.3 requires police department review of individual development projects to ensure that safety and security components are included in project designs, including proper visibility, access and similar components reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 7.8A identified a significant impact with regard to other municipal services, such as building and safety, engineering, planning, and general governmental services provided by the City of Dublin. Other governmental services are provided by Alameda County, incluc'.ing libraries, welfare and similar functions. Adherence to Mitigation Meast.re 7.8.1 will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure requires that the City of Dublin analyze other municipal service costs to ensure tl .at satisfactory services can be provided as part of a Development Agreement. • Impact 7.9A notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the amount of solid waste generated by new land uses on the Schaefer Ranch site. The Schaefer Ranch EIR includes Mitigation Measures 7.9.1 and 7.9.2 to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures requires the applicant to furnish the City a "will serve" letter from the solid waste collector confirming that solid waste collection and disposal services are available to serve the Project and that commercial portions of the Schaefer Ranch area provide on-site areas for recycling. • Impact 7.10A identified an impact with regard to school district boundaries and school facilities. When the 1996 EIR was preparec., neither the Castro Valley Unified School District or the Dublin Unified School District had the capacity to accommodate additional students generated by the Schaefer Ranch development. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.10.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. It requires that, prior to resident:.al occupancy, the City verify that attendance boundaries between the two schcol districts have been resolved, City of Dublin Page 54 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 that the Development Agreement for the Project provide for payment of school fees by Project developers and that the applicable school district has been consulted with regard to siting of any new schools required to serve the Schaefer Ranch Project. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Fire protection? NI. The applicant is required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.3.1 through 7.3.8 contained in the 1996 EIR that reduces impacts to the Alameda County Fire Department to a less-than-significant level. These measures have been satisfied to the City of Dublin (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division 6/12/08). The proposed Project: would result in fewer dwellings and a resident population than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The current Project would also replace a 5.6-acre retail commercial site with a small day care facility Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to fire protection tl?an analyzed in the 1996 EIR have been identified. b) Police protection? NI. Similar to fire protection, the Project applicant is required to adhere to Mitigation Measures 7.4.1 through 7.4.3 contained in the 1996 EIR to reduce police impacts to a less-than-significant level. To meet these measures, the proposed Development Agreement will include a E trategy to fund additional police resources and the proposed Project has been reviewed by the Dublin Police Services Department to ensure that safety and security features have been included in the Project design (pers. comm., Val Guzman Dublin Police Services, 5/29/08). The proposed Project would also result in fewer dwellings and a lower resident population than analyzed in the 1996 EIR. The 5.6-acre commercial area on the Project site would be replaced by a smaller clay care facility. The applicant also received written confirmation from East Bay Regional Park District staff that the District Board accepted responsibility for regional trails and other facilities within the Schaefer Ranch site (memo from Linda Chavez, EBRPD, dated December 13, 2006). Therefore, no now or more significant impacts with regard to police service than analyzed in the 1996 EIR have been identified. c) Schools? NI. There would be no impacts with regard to school impacts with adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.10A contained in the 1996 EIR. Payment of statutorily mandated impact fees at the time of isst ance of building permits will comply with this mitigation requirement. The school district boundary between the Castro Valley Unified School District and Dubl: n Unified School District is currently adjusted to include the entire Schaefer Ranch site within the Dublin Unified district. The boundary adjustment process is anticipated to be completed at the end of June, 2008. Commencing with the beginning of the school year in the fall of 2008, public school students residing in the Schaefer Ranch will attend Dublin Elementary School. Wells Middle School and Dublin High School (pers. comm., Kim McNeeley, Dublin Unified School District, 5 / 27/ 08). There, no new or City of Dublin Page 55 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 more significant impacts would occur with regard =o school impacts than were analyzed in the 1996 EIR. d) Other governmental service, including maintenance of public facilities? NI. With adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.8.1 contained in the 1996 EIR, that requires a Development Agreement for the Project ensure that satisfactory financial resources are devoted to other governmental services, no nev7 or more significant impacts would occur with regard to other governmental services. The pending Development Agreement of the Project includes such analysis (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division, 6/12/08). e) Solid waste generation? NI. See item 16 "e" and "f," below. 14. Recreation Environmental Setting The Project Site is currently vacant and contains no City or regional parks. The City of Dublin Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that local parks are planned to be constructed north of the Project Site and a regional trail is planned to extend through the approximate center of the Schaefer Ranch Project. The regional trail has been completed and accepted by the East Bay Parks District. A staging area for the regional trail is currently tinder construction. Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 EIR contains the following impacts and mitiga'ion measures with regard to parks and recreation facilities. Impact 7.6A identified an impact to open space rr abagement issues within the Schaefer Ranch, including balancing public use of open space areas and overuse of environmentally fragile areas. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6-1 requires preparation of an Open Space Managem'nt Plan that would identify open space areas, specific issues and funding sou-ces for open space areas. • Impact 7.613 notes a potentially significant impact with regard to the need for additional parks within the Schaefer Ranch project to serve the anticipated increase of on-site residents. Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 requires the provision of local parks, a regional trail and payment of in-lieu park fees to the City of Dublin for neighborhood and community parks. Park sites offered to the City shall be reviewed for developability as a par,, in terms of geotechnical considerations, availability of services and other conditions. With adherence to these measures, Impact 7.613 will be less-than-significant. • Impact 7.6C notes a potentially significant impact with regard to internal open space, including on-going maintenance, fire suppression, weed abatement, erosion control and slope stability. Mitigation Measure 7.6.5 requires the City of Dublin to impose conditions of approval on specific development projects within City of Dublin Page 56 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 the Schaefer Ranch, including ownership of graded slopes with heights of 15 feet or greater, maintenance of access points to open space areas, provision of a permanent management entity for internal and p 2rimeter open space areas. • Impact 7.6E relates to an impact with regard to the proposed regional trail and other on-site trail facilities being consistent with I71BRPD standards. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6.8 and 7.6.9 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require the City of Dublin i:o verify that regional trail facilities and linkages are consistent with EBRPD standards. These mitigation measures continue to apply to the proposed Project. Project Impacts a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. Approval and construction of the proposed Project ;would not increase the use of nearby City and/or regional recreational facilities from that analyzed in the 1996 EIR, since the total number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch should the Project be approved (406 dwellings) would be fE-wer analyzed in the 1996 EIR (474 dwellings) and entitled in the current subdivision map (466 dwellings). Also, two local public parks are proposed to be con,,;tructed within the larger Schaefer Ranch community that may be used by residents of the proposed Project. The proposed Happy Talkers component of the Pro ect would also include a private outdoor play area for use by the facility's students. The proposed regional trail would extend along the easterly boundary of the proposed Project for access by future Project residents. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 through 7.6.4 by the Project applicant will reduce impacts related to increased use of parks to a less-than-significant level. The Project developer has dedicated local parkland to the City in compliance with Mitigation Measures 7.6.2 - 7.6.4 (per Jeff Baker, Dublin Planning Division, 6/ 12/08). Therefore, no new or more significant impacts with regard to use of parks would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? NI. See item "a," above. 15. Transportation/Traffic Environmental Setting The Project Site is served by Dublin Boulevard, a major east-west arterial road that has been extended into Schaefer Ranch. Dublin Boulevard li:zks Schaefer Ranch with central Dublin as well as providing regional access to the I-580 freeway. North-south access to and from the Project Site is provided by Schaefer Ranch Road that intersects with Dublin Canyon Road south of the I-580 freeway. Public transit to West Dublin is provided by the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority that operates WHEELS, a fixed and demand l: ased bus service in Dublin, Pleasanton and Livermore. The closest bus line to Schaefer Ranch is Route 3 that City of Dublin Page 57 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 extends as far west as the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Silvergate Drive. Route 3 provides fixed weekday and Saturday service to Stoneridge Mall, Hacienda Business Park, the Dublin/ Pleasanton BART station and other pcints within Dublin. As noted in the Recreation section above, a regional mu:.ti-use trail has been constructed within the Schaefer Ranch site and dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District. A trailhead has also been built. Dublin Boulevard has been designed to accommodate bicyclists (pers. comm., Frank Navarro, Dublin Public W orks Department, 5/ 28 / 08). Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR contains the following traffic and circulation significant impacts and mitigation measures. Impact 4A identifies a significant impact with reg and to additional traffic at the Silvergate Drive/ Dublin Boulevard intersection causing this intersection to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.A.1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and requires developments within the Schaefer Ranch to contribute a fair share contribution to a traffic signal at this intersection and associated widening of this intersection. Impact 4B noted a significant impact with regard to future traffic at the San Ramon Road/ Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Mitigation Measure 4.B.1 requires the Schaefer Ranch developer to contribute a fair share contribution to widening and improving this intersection to accommodate future project traffic. With such a payment, this impact will be less-than-significant • Impact 4F identified an impact with regard to significant impacts at the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection as a result of Schaefer Ranch traffic. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 41.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level by requiring the Schaefer Ranch Droject developer to contribute a fair share portion of the cost of installing a traff; c signal at this intersection. • Impact 4G identified a significant impact at the Schaefer Ranch/ Dublin Canyon Road intersection due to future traffic from Schaefer Ranch. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.G.1 reduces this impact to less-than-significant level and requires the developer to contribute a fair share amount of the cost to signalizing this intersection and to making related improverr ents to Dublin Canyon Road. • Impact 4H notes a significant impact with regard to future traffic at Schaefer Ranch Road and Dublin Boulevard. Adherence to Mitigation Measure 4.1-1.1 reduces this impact to a less-than-significant impact by requiring the Schaefer Ranch developer install a traffic signal at this intersection. • Impact 4L identified a significant impact with regard transit access to the Schaefer Ranch site, specifically that no pubic transit stops exist near the Ranch. City of Dublin Page 58 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Mitigation Measure 4.0.1 requires the City of Dublin to consult with public transit districts o make necessary transit arrangements for future transit provisions. The City shall require a park-and-ridE' lot, if appropriate, as well as a transit stop, bus turning radii and other facilities :o support transit. • Impact 40 identified a significant cumulative impact with regard to future traffic conditions at Eden Canyon Road/Palomares Canyon Road and a I-580 interchange due to future traffic plus the Schaefer Ranch's contribution to future traffic conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.L.1 reduced this impact to a less-than- Impact 4R identified a significant impact with the provision of pedestrian and bicycle access within the Schaefer Ranch development and with providing regional linkages to existing bicycle and pedestrian systems. Mitigation Measure 4.R.1 through 4.R.3 reduced this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring Dublin Boulevard to accommodate bicycles, extending the pedestrian/ equestrian trial under 1-580 to connect with Dublin Canyon Road and providing proper signs and markings for trail crossings. Project Impacts a,b) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relat.'on to existing traffic load and street capacity or exceed, either individually or cumulat;'vely, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads? NI. The proposed Project would contribute fewer peak hour vehicle trips to local and regional roads than the currently approved land use configuration on the Project Site. This is shown on Table 2, below. Table 2. Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Quantity A.M. Peak Hour Trips P.M. Peak Hour -Trips Approved Develo ment Retail 5.35 ac. 128 353 Office 5.35 ac. 112 104 Single Family 400 dwellings 296 404 Total Trips -- 536 861 Proposed Project Single Family 406 300 410 Townhouse 74 33 41 Retail 0 0 0 Fire station 0 0 0 Total Trips 333 451 Net Change -203 -410 Note: Trip rates based on Table 4-5 contained in the 1996 Schaeferr Ranch EIR, updated by City of Dublin staff Based on the calculations contained in Table 2, fewer a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips would result should he proposed Project be approved than was analyzed in the City of Dublin Page 59 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 1996 EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less impact to roadways than the Project analyzed in the 1996 EIR. As required by various mitigation measures contained in the 1996 EIR, the Project developer has or will be required to install a traffic signal system at the Dublin Boulevard/ Schaefer Ranch Road intersection as well as to pay fair share contributions to improvements at the Silvergate Drive/ Dublin Boulevard intersection, the San Ramon Road/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Hansen Drive/Dublin Boulevard intersection, the Schaefer Ranch Road/Dublin Canyon Road intersection, the Dublin Boulevard/ Schaefer Ranch Road intersection and the Eden Canyon Road-Palomares Road/I-580 inte-change. Based on discussions with the Dublin Public Work;; Department, the above improvements have constructed, have been bonded for, or fees have been paid to the City as required by the various 1996 Mitigation Measures (per Frank Navarro, Dublin Public Works Department, 6/12/08). Thus, no new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR would result. c) Change in air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves a proposed residential development and related entitlements. The Site is also not located near any public or private airport or airstrip. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature of incompatible use? NI. Approval of the proposed Project and future development would add new driveways, sidewalks and other vehicular and pedestrian travel ways where none currently exist. The Dublin Municipal Code contains design standards intended to assure that access to and from a development area, and circulation within the area, will be safe and efficient. Since Project facilities will be required to be constructed to these design standards, no significant impacts with regard to creating design hazards or unsafe conditions are anticipated. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. The propo 3ed Project includes two local roadway connections with Dublin Boulevard, similar to the currently approved vesting tentative map. Adequate emergency access to and from the Project Site would be provided per Dublin Fire Department standards and as required by Mitigation Measure 7.3.6. No new or more significant impacts with regard to emergency access would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. No impacts to parking requirements are anticipated since the project will be required to comply with City of Dublin parking requirements. The adequacy of on-site parking facilities will be ensured through the SDR review process by the City of Dublin. No new or more significant impacts would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. g) Conflict with policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation plans or result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists" NI. The proposed Project City of Dublin Page 60 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 includes features that would promote pedestrian and bicycle use as required by Mitigation Measures 4.R.1- 4.R.3, including allowing bicycle traffic along Dublin Boulevard adjacent to the Project and including a pedestrian paseo in the center of the Project. No new or more significant impacts re&arding alternative transportation modes would occur beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. 16. Utilities and Service Systems Environmental Setting The Project Site is currently served by the following service providers: • Water supply: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) • Sewage collection and treatment: DSRSD • Solid waste service: Amador Valley Industries. • Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. • Communications: AT & T (formerly Pacific Bell). Schaefer Ranch EIR The 1996 EIR contains the following significant impacts and mitigation measures with regard to utilities and service systems. Impacts 7.1A and 7.113 identified significant impacts with regard to lack of a water system on the Project site and constraints on water supply. These impacts were reduced to less-than-significant levels by adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.1.1 through 7.1.8. These measures require incorporation of water conservation features into the project, designing and constructing water systems to meet DSRSD engineering; standards, construction of a new water reservoir on the site, issuance of a will-serve water service letter from DSRSD, appropriate phasing of the water system and similar elements. Impact 7.2A was identified as a significant impac: related to the adequacy of wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Adherence to Mitigation Measures 7.2.1 through 7.2.12 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. These measures require issuance of a "will-serve" letter from DSRSD indicating that adequate wastewater disposal capacity is available, requiring the applicant to update the local wastewater collection system master plan, requires the Project developer to obtain wastewater connections from DSRSD, requires use of recycled water for open space areas, requires annexation of the Ranch to DSRSD, requires that all wastewater facilities be constructed to DSRSD engineering standards, requires that treated effluent from the Project meet Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and other related items. City of Dublin Page 61 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 • Impact 7.2C noted a significant impact with regard to disposal of treated wastewater that will be reduced to a less-than-significant level by adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.4. • Impact 7.21) identified a significant impact with regard to wastewater improvements. Mitigation Measure 7.2.6 reduced this impact to a less-than- significant level. • Impact 7.9A noted a significant impact with regard to solid waste capacity. Mitigation Measure 7.9.1 Project Impacts a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQZB? NI. Mitigation Measure 7.2.8 contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR requires he Project to meet treated effluent standards adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the will-serve letter issued by DSRSD for the overa..l Schaefer Ranch project, adequate wastewater- treatment and disposal capacity exists to serve development planned in the Schaefer Ranch development so tha: no new or more significant impacts would result. The currently proposed Project would be less than the total number of dwellings and the commercial development originally planned and approved for this portion of the overall Schaefer Ranch development. b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NI. Table 3, below, compares estimates water use for the proposed Project with the amount of water anticipated for the Schaefer Ranch site and included in DSRSD's Urban Water Management Plan 2005 update The t&ble shows the types and intensity of land uses included in the proposed lane use plan would generate an estimated 10,500 fewer gallons of water per day compared with currently approved uses. The quantity of water use for approved land uses for the Schaefer Ranch has been confirmed by DSRSD staff (Rhodora Biagton, DSRSD engineer, 6/2/08) City of Dublin Page 62 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Table 3. Estimated Schaefer Ranch Potable Water Demand in Gallons Per Day (GPD) Land Use Development Quantity Generation Factor Est. Water Demand (gallons/day) Proposed development Low Density Residential 406 du 393 gpd 159,558 Happy Talkers 14,200 sf 0.05 sf d 710 Subtotal 160,268 Approved water use Single family dwellings) 433 du 393 170,169 Commercial 0.6 ac' 6,817 sf 0.j sf 681 Subtotal 170,850 Total - -10,582 Notes: 1) Approved water use based on e-mail from Rhodora Biagton to Jeff Baker, 6/2/08 2) Commercial development based on Table 6-4 of DSRSD 2005 U'ban Water Management Plan 3) Generation factor from 2005 Urban Water Management Plan The issue of wastewater treatment facilities is ad&r ssed in subsection "a." above. Overall, no new or more significant impacts would occur with regard to water and wastewater provision than was analyzed in the 19S 6 EIR. c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. Impacts related to drainage impacts and mitigation measures from the 1996 EIR are contained in Section 8 of this Initial Study Based on the analysis contained in that section, no new or more significant impacts related to storm drainage facilities beyond those set forth in the 1996 have been identified. d) Are sufficient water supplies available? NI. See item "t,," above. e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed pro;'ect? NI. See response to "a," above. f) Solid waste disposal? NI. Adherence to Mitigation M'asure 7.9.1 contained in the 1996 EIR reduced the impact to solid waste facilities as a result of the proposed Project to a less-than-significant level. This mitigation requires the solid waste provider to issue a will-serve letter prior to issuance of a tentative subdivision map. Based on information provided by Amador Valley Industries, the franchised solid waste and recycle hauler for the City of Dublin, adequate capacity exists in the Altamont Landfill to accommodate the quantity of solid waste generated by this Project (per. comm., Karen Brighi, Amador Valley Industries, 7/21/08). With City of Dublin Page 63 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 adherence to Mitigation Measure 7.9.1, no new or more significant impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1996 EIR with regard to solid waste would occur. g) Comply with federal, slate and local statutes and regula `ions related to solid waste? NI. The existing service provider will ensure adherence to federal, state and local solid waste regulations should the proposed developme:lt applications be approved. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. 17. Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animcl or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No. Potential impacts related to substantial reduction of fish or wildlife species or their respective species, reduce the range or number of endangered plant or animal species or eliminate examples of major period of California history or prehistory on the Schaefer Ranch site area have been analyzed and mitigated in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. The proposed Project would cause no new or substantially more significant impacts on biological or cultural resources beyond those identified in the previous EIR. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limbed, 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 project; and the effects of probable future projects). No. Significant and unavoidable impacts have been identified with regard to secondary impacts on native plants, regional pollutant emissions, cumulative loss of open space and cumulative loss of vegetation and wildlife. The proposed Project wou: d not result in additional or more significant cumulative impacts than have been previously analyzed by the City. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study. City of Dublin Page 64 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 Initial Study Preparers Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, project manager Jane Maxwell, report graphics Agencies and Organizations Consulted The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study: City of Dublin Jeri Ram, AICP, Community Development Director Jeff Baker, Senior Planner Frank Navarro, Senior Civil Engineer Tim Cremin, Assistant City Attorney Val Guzman, Police Services Department Dublin Unified School District Kim McNeeley, Facilities Manager Dublin San Ramon Services District Rhodora Biagton, senior engineer California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Website Applicant Representatives Doug Chen, Discovery Builders References California Department of Toxic Substances Control, website, May 2008 Dublin General Plan, City of Dublin, Updated through 9/14/06 Final Environmental Impact Report for Schaefer Ranch Project/ General Plan Amendment, WPM Planning Team, 1996 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Dublin, 2004 update City of Dublin Page 65 Initial Study/Schaefer Ranch October 2008 PA 08-005 CEQA ADDENDUM FOR SCHAEFER RANCH UNIT 2 PA 08-005 October 2, 2008 On July 2, 1996?, the Dublin City Council adopted Resolution No. 76-96, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Schaefer Ranch Project/General Plan Amendment ("Schaefer Ranch EIR, SCH #95033070). The certified EIR consisted of a Draft EIR and Responses to Comments bound volumes. The Schaefer Ranch EIR evaluated the potential environmental effects of urbanizing the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch with a mixture of residential, commercial, office, parks, public and &,-mi-public and open space land uses. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the Unit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch, as described below. Project Description and Prior Approvals The City of Dublin approved development of portions of the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch in 1996. The approvals included a General Plan Amendment, prezoning, annexation to the City, Zone 7 and DSRSD, detachment from the Hayward area Recreation and Parks District, vesting tentative subdivision maps and a development agreement. Schaefer Ranch is located in the western portion of the City o_'Dublin and adjacent to the western City limit of Dublin. More specifically, the Schaefer Ranch is located on the north side of the I-580 freeway, at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard and south and east of current Dublin City limits. The Unit 2 portion of Schaefer Ranch is located south of Dub] in Boulevard, north of the I-580 Freeway, east of current City limits and just east of Schaefer I'anch Road. The current application includes an amendment to the Dublin General Plan, a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, Vestin;; Tentative Map and a Development Agreement. Prior CEQA Analyses and Determinations Schaefer Ranch EIR. The Schaefer Ranch EIR analyzed the potential effects of future urban development planned for a then-largely undeveloped area west the City of Dublin. Numerous environmental impacts were identified and numerous mitigation measures were adopted upon approval of the Schaefer Ranch General Plan Amendment. For identified impacts that could not be mitigated to insignificance, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. All previously adopted mitigation measures for development of the overall EXHIBIT B TO ATTACHMENT 1 Schaefer Ranch Unit 2 Page 2 Addendum EIR-City of Dublin October 2008 Schaefer Ranch project that are applicable to the Project and Project site continue to apply to the currently proposed Project. The Schaefer Ranch EIR is incorporated herein by reference. Current CEQA Analysis and Determination that an Addendum is Appropriate for this Project. Updated Initial Study. The City of Dublin has determined t1 at an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA review for the proposed Project. Prior to making this determination, the City reviewed the Schaefer Ranch EIR to determine if any further environmental review is required for the proposed General Plan, Planned Development Rezone and associated applications for Unit 2 of Schaefer Ranch. The City prepared an updated Initial Study dated October 2008, and incorporated herein by reference. Through this Initial Study, the City has determined that no subsequent EIR, or negative declaration is required for this Project. No Subsequent Review is Required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 identifies the conditions requiring subsequent environmental review. After a review of these conditions, the City has deterruned 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 fi-om that analyzed in the 1996 Schaefer Ranch EIR. No increase in the number of dwellings within the overall Schaefer Ranch are proposed as part of the Project. The Project on the Unit 2 portion of the Schaefer Ranch would include a change in the type and density of uses and would not be a substantial change. The Project changes would not result in any new or more severe significant impacts than those analyzed in the 1996 EIR. No additional or different mitigation measures are required from those included in the 1996 EIR. This General Plan Amendment would replace the "Retail/Office" and "Estate Residential" land use designations. A majority of the Unit 2 Project Site would then be changed to the "Single: Family Residential" land use designation. A related part of the General Plan Amendment would change the "Retail/Office" land use designation of the 0.55-acre Happy Talkers site and the adjacent 0.65-acre site held for a possible future fire station to the "Public/Semi-Public" land use designation. Slope areas on the Project Site north of the I-50 freeway and west of the residential area would also be redesignated to the "Open Space" land use designation. b) Are there substantial changes in the conditions which the Project is undertaken involving new or more severe significant impacts? There are no substantial changes in the conditions assumed in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. This is documented 1:1 the attached Initial Study prepared for this Project dated October 2008. Schaefer Ranch Unit 2 Addendum EIR-City of Dublin October 2008 Page 3 c) Is there new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the previous EIR that shows the Project will have a significant effect not addressed in the previous EIR; or previous effects are more severe; or, previously infeasible mitigation measures are now feasible but the applicant declined to adopt them; or mitigation measures considerably different from those in the previous EIR would substantially reduce significant effects but the 2pplicant declines to adopt them? There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect. As documented in the attached Initial Study, no new or different mitigation measures are required. All previously adopted mitigations continue to ripply to the Project. d) If no subsequent EIR-level review is required, should a subsequent negative declaration be prepared? No subsequent negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required because there are no impacts, significant or otherwise, of the Project beyond those identified in the Schaefer Ranch EIR. Conclusion. This Addendum is adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 based on the attached Initial Study dated October 2008. The Addendum and Initial Study review the proposed redesignation of land uses as discussed above. Thro .rgh the adoption of this Addendum and related Initial Study, the City determines that the above minor changes in land uses do not require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration under Guidelines Section 15162. The City further determines ghat the Schaefer Ranch EIR, adequately addresses 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 Initial Study, Schaefer Ranch EIR and all resolutions cited above are incorporated herein by reference and are available for public review during normal business hours in the Community Development Department, Dublin City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA. RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL/OFFICE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR. THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH (APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South located at the southeast and southwest corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road; and WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a GPA to modify the General Plan Land Use designations for approximately 81.3-acres of the project area to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approv.-d Resolution 76-96 certifying an Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CBQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 95033070) in connection with the General Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area, which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996 the City Council approved Resolution 77-96 and adopted a General Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area and identified General Plan land use designation for the Schaefer Ranch Project area; and WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations, densities and policies related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a) that shows the location of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicants request for the initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South Project (Resolution No. 154- 07); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CE()A), together with the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and Attachment 2 WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to tie Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project wc.re analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 (Sections 15162/3) are met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared z.n Initial Study, included herein by reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008, was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the Project and recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Addendum and related Initial Study, approve the GI'A and PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and that the Planning Commission approve VTM 8000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and considor all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on the findings in the attached draft City Council Resolution, recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution attached as Exhibit A, which amends the portions of the Dublin General Plan relating to the 81.3-acre area known as Schaefer Ranch South, and which includes the following as described. in the attached Resolution: 1) Definition of the propose Public/Semi-Public land use designation; 2) Amends to the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a); and 3) Amends to the text and various tables in the General Plan. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14`h day of October 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 2 Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G. IPA#110081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South IPlanning CommissionIPCReso Schaefer GPA.doc RESOLUTION NO. XX - 08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND RETAIL/OFFICE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH (APNs 941-2832-027 to 028 and 031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 0211) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLB, submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South located at the southeast and southwest corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Rz.nch Road; and WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval of a GPA to odify the General Plan Land Use designations for approximately 81.3-acres of the project area to change the existing Estate Residential (0.01-0.8 du/acre), Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), and Retail/Office land use designations to Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 diJacre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space; and WHEREAS, the Dublin General Plan was originally adopted on February 11, 1985, and has been amended a number of times since that date; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution 76-96 certifying an Environmental Impact Report ("Schaefer Ranch EIR") pursuant to CLQA Guidelines section 15168 (SCH No. 95033070) in connection with the General Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area, which EIR is available for review in the Planning Division and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved Resolution 77-96 and adopted a General Plan Amendment for the Western Extended Planning Area and identified General Plan land use designation for the Schaefer Ranch project area; and WHEREAS, the General Plan currently identifies land use designations, densities and policies related to density calculations, and includes a General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 1-1a) that shows the location of land uses within the City of Dublin and the Sphere of Influence; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2007, the City Council granted the Applicants request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch South project (Resolution No. 154-07); and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 2 Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 (Sections 15162/3) are met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the stanc.ards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Und °r CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly not_ced public hearing on October 14, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2008, the Planning Comr.iission adopted Resolution 08-xx incorporated herein by reference, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated 2008 was submitted to the City Council analyzing the Project and recommending that the City Council approve the GPA and PD Rezone with Stage 2.Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the forego Mg recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that the proposed amendments to the Dublin General Plan are in the public interest and will not have an adverse affect on health or safety or be detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or public improvement and that the Dublin General Plan as so amended will remain internally consistent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby find that the proposed map and text amendments to the General Plan are consistent with all other goals, policies, and implementing programs set forth in the General Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby approve the following amendments to the Dublin General: Section I. General Plan,4mendments. Subsection i. Section 1.8.1 (Land Use Classifications), under the subsection "Western Extended Planning Area (West of Primary Planning Area - See Figure 1-1a)" is hereby amended as follows: i. Delete the first paragraph of the "Other land use categories". This paragraph to be deleted reads as follows: 2 "Commercial, public/semi-public, and other land use categories for the Primary Planning Area are applicable in the Western Extended Planning Area." ii. The following land use designation is added to the "Other land use categories": "Public/Semi-Public Facilities (Maximum of .60 FAR; employee density: 590 square feet per employee). A combination land use category of Public Facilities land uses and Semi- Public Facilities land uses. Public Facilities are uses other than parks owned by a public agency or non profit entity that are of sufficient size to warrant differentiation from adjoining uses. Such uses include public schools, libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other public agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; utilities; and Civic Center. Semi-Public Facilities uses are quasi-public uses, such as child care centers, youth centers, senior centers, special needs program facilities, religious institutions, clubhouses, community centers, community theatres, hospitals, private schools, and other facilities that provide cultural, educational, or other similar services and benefit the community. A Semi-Public Facility may be used for more than one such use. Development of housing- on a site designated on the General Plan as Semi-Public Facilities shall be considered consistent with the General Plan when it is developed by a non-profit entity and serves to meet affordable housing needs or the housing needs of an underserved economic segment of the community. Determination as to whether housing should be permitted on a specific Semi-Public Facilities site and the acceptable density and design will be through review of a Planned Development proposal under the Zoning Ordinance." Subsection ii. Figure 1-1 a, General Plan Land Use Map is hereby replaced with a revised General Plan Land Use map as tollows: D U B L I N G E N E R A L P L A N (Figure I-la( L A N D U S E M A P as amended through November 4, 2008 Y' J I % J P-k/SemHkA*q0pen Space wgmaPa. Ca--W/IMY W ?rz..w w mrid ? roux/Omle Rew-bA ev aa, g ee(?urn iOO Gnvx m ne.uAU.v p., ., oemyxl Pbmrg Art umc. u w l ? maYmm?mg ae axaaY y - .«a nw. n +'v •'?°•^ t;_?_; Paxv PWkRnrenvm ? opM Mxe -Peu/om.e. vve gwamm amiem a„vry v,yer..?Yry NS.Yeeu...l in.. Unvry.Ye?tl.n?ua lone. mvx? tlm - ?W - -? Sveantanarv ? (? wmccurCxrgnomar _ e u?y.ls.eyxewerea lon-e. au,.xl M.ny aevemva lb.?v /xl Qrvx.nf.n _- QSIYw'eulY - Rou< xm PUiwr ® x vgnuenury awxnv?l .s.a avml ? x /s TrtVatlrylubOttlvs •.. ., ury oluarmwe - x.n himr -3..u P vwvx -® syP VMUV?x xe oumow w.v.yr ?a ..www ;..I l q ___ e 4.- Quq urna..sendi _ _ 3 Section II. Table 2.2 (Schaefer Ranch Project Land Us,- and Housing Characteristics), is hereby replaced with the following revised Table 2.2: Table 2.2 LAND USE SUMMARY: WESTERN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA (Amended: Resolution xx-08) Classification Acres Units Factor Yield RESIDENTIAL Du's Persons/du Population Estate Residential 16.9 6 3.2 19 Single-Family Residential 89.6 400 3.2 1,280 TOTAL: PARKS AND PUBLIC RECREATION 106.5 406 1,299 Neighborhood Park 12.5 1 part: Open Space 385 TOTAL: 397.5 1 part: PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC Public/Semi-Public 5.5 -- -- -- TOTAL: 5.5 GRAND TOTAL: 509.5 Section III. All provisions of the General Plan not amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. Section IV. This Resolution shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South\City C,)uncil\CC Reso Schaefer GPA.doc 4 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH (APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 0:11) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment and PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan for 80.09-acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer R?.nch Road known as Schaefer Ranch South; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 1996, the City Council approved a PD rezone for Schaefer Ranch, which included the subject property (Ordinance 15-96); and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2006, the City Council approved a PD rezone and Stage 2 Development for Schaefer Ranch, which again included the subject property (Ordinance 11-06); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (Resolution 08-xx) recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment for land uses within the Schaefer Ranch South project area; and WHEREAS, PD Zoning districts are required to be consistent with all elements of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the California E=nvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under tale California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 (Sections 15162/3) are met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared an Initial Study, included herein by reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR p,.irsuant to Section 15162/3 may be Attachment 3 included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been pr(pared, a copy of which is included herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum and related Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on October 14, 2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council approval of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly no Iced public hearing on October 14, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the Project and recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the GPA and PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consid,-r all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution (Resolution 08-xx) recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment for land users within the Schaefer Ranch South project area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Ordinance included as Exhibit A, which Ordinance approves a PD rezone and Stage 2 Development Plan for Schaefer Ranch South with the following and as described in the attached Ordinance: 1) Statement of compatibility with Stage 1 Development Plan; 2) Statement of proposed uses; 3) Stage 2 Site Plan; 4) Site area and proposed densities; 5) Development regulations; 6) Architectural standards; and 7) Preliminary landscaping plan. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14`h day of October.2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 2 Bill Schaub Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Mary Jo Wilson, AICP Planning Manager G: IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SouthlPlanning CommissionIPCReso Schaefer Stage 2 PD.do: ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,t * * * * * * * * * APPROVING A PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONE WITH STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH (APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835-001 to 003, 2.nd 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021) PA 08-005 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. By Ordinance No. 15-96, the City Council rezoned the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch project area generally located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of Interstate 580 (1-580), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 96-037). B. By Ordinance No. 11-06, the City Council rezoned the approximately 500-acre Schaefer Ranch project area generally located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits, north of Interstate 580 (I-580), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda to the Planned Development Zoning District (PA 06.031) and adopted a Stage 2 Development Plan for the entire project area. C. This Ordinance replaces the Stage 2 Development Plan i or that portion of the area located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road approved in Ordinance No. 11-06 by the City Council on August 1, 2006 (APlJs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-2835- 001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021). SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS A. Pursuant to Section 832.070 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: The Planned Development (PD) Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, meets the purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because: 1) it provides a comprehensive development plan for Single-Family Residential and Open Space; and 2) it creates a functional use of land that is sensitive to surrounding land uses in terms of layout, design, and conformity to the existing topography. 2. The PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan wily" be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the land uses and site plan establish residential uses; 2) the project area is surrounded by similar single- family residential uses; and 3) the land uses and site plan provide effective transitions to surrounding development, which is characterised by the proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 3 B. Pursuant to Section 8.12.0.050.A and B of the Dublin Municipal Code, the City Council finds as follows: The PD Rezoning, with amended Stage 2 Development Plan, will be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas because: 1) the residential uses identified in the PD are consistent with the General Plan land uses; 2) the Stage 2 Development Plan maintains the low ntensity of uses and open space on steeper slopes adjacent to I-580; and 3) the land uses and site plan provide effective transitions to surrounding development which is characterized by the proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. 2. The project site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed because: 1) the project has been designed to accommodate the topography of the Project site which is characterized by vacant, rolling hills; 2) development is concentrated in the less constrainec areas with open space designations in the more constrained areas; 3) the open s :)ace designations help to protect constrained areas; 4) the flexibility of the proposed PD district allows development to be tailored to onsite conditions. 3. The PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, W11 not adversely affect the health or safety ofpersons residing or working in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because: 1) the Stage 2 Development Plan has been designed in accordance with the City of Dublin General Plan; 2) future development will comply with all applicable development regulations and standards and will implement all adopted mitigation measures. 4. The PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, is consistent with the Dublin General Plan because: the project includes companion amendments to the General Plan. C. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, th,- City Council finds as follows: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quali?ly Act (CEQA), the City Council adopted Resolution 76-96) certifying the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #95033070). The Schaefer Ranch EIk is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review in the Community Development Department. On _, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution XX-08 adopting a CEQA Addendum for the project, which Resolution is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipa. Code, the Dublin Zoning Map is amended to rezone the following property ("the Property") to a PD-Planned Development district: 80.09+ acres located in an area bounded by Dublin Boulevard to the north, I-580 to the south, Schaefer Ranch Road to the east, and an estate lot with a private residence to the west (APNs 941-2832-031 to 032, 941-:1835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-002 to 003, and 010 to 021). 2 Planned Development Zoning Area Map SECTION 4. STAGE 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The regulations for the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in the following Stage 2 Development Plan, which is hereby approved. Any amendments to the Stage 2 Development Plan shall be in accordance with Section 8.32.080 of the Dublin Municipal Code or its successors. 1. Statement of compatibility with the Development Plan. The Stage 2 Development Plan is compatible with the Development Plan adopted as part of the Planned Development zoning for the overall Schaefer Ranch development in that the Project is a residential development as planned for in the PD zoning. The Stage 2 Development Plan establishes standards to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals, policies, and action programs of the General Plan and provisions of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied. 2. Statement of uses. The following uses are permitted for this area: A) PD Single Family Residential Intent: Single Family land use designations are established to: a) reserve appropriately located areas for family living at reasonable population densities consistent with sound standards of public health and safety; b) ensure adequate light, air privacy and open space for each dwelling; and c) accommodate single family housing, including a wide range of units from small-lot and zero-lot units to large lot estate units. Intensity of Use: 0.9 - 6.0 dwelling units per acre Permitted Uses: a. One-family dwelling b. Secondary Unit/casita C. Accessory structures and uses in accordance with Section 8.40.030 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance d. Animal keeping - residential e. Community care facility/small (permitted if required by law, otherwise as conditional use) f. Small family day care home per Chapter 8.08 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance g. Home occupation in accordance with Chapter 8.64 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance h. Paseos and common area landscaping i. Public utilities, services and facilities necessary to serve the project j. Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director 3 Conditional Uses: a. Bed and breakfast inn b. Boarding house c. Community facilities d. Community clubhouse e. Parking lot, only when established to fulfill the residential parking requirements of this zoning district for use on an abutting lot or lots f. Plant nursery or greenhouse used only for the cultivation and wholesale of plant material (wholesale, only) g. Medical or residential care facility (7 or more clients) h. Large family day care homes i. Semi-Public uses j. Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director Temporary Uses: Please refer to Zoning Ordinance Chapter 8.108 for a list of permitted temporary uses and permit procedures. B) PD Open Space Intent: Open Space land use designations are established within the project area. The public open space areas are intended to provide for the preservation of natural resources, outdoor recreational activities, and public health and safety. The private open space areas are intended to provide for similar types of uses, in areas which are owned and maintained by a private homeowners association. Unless otherwise modified under this PD approval, all applicable requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance shall be applied to these land use designations. Permitted Uses: a. Public and private recreational trails and maintenance roads b. Conservation and wildlife habitat preservation areas c. Public and private utilities, services and facilities and uses necessary to serve the project d. Similar and related uses as determined by the Community Development Director 3. Stage 2 Site Plan. PD Single-Family Residential The Stage 2 Site Plan for the Project is laid out to accommodate hillside slopes and preserve open space as shown below. The residential portions of the Project are laid in one neighborhood with lots that range from 4,875- 10,270 square feet. 4 PD Opcii Spud Stage 2 Site Plan 4. Site area, proposed densities. Gross Net Number Gross Net Land Use Designation Acres Acres of Uniti Density Densi Single-Family Residential 29.70 ac 22.35 ac 140 unils 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac Open Space 50.39 ac 47.22 ac n/a n/a n/a Total: 80.09 ac 69.57 ac 140 units 4.71 du/ac 6.26 du/ac 5. Development Regulations. Development Regulations within the PD Single-Family Residential zoning district are as established in the following table: STANDARD ]Minimum Unless Otherwise Noted Lot Size 4500 sf Lot Width • Typical street 45 ft • Cul-de-sac (measure at right-of-way) 35 ft Lot Depth 100 ft Lot Coverage • one-story 45 % maximum • two-story 35 % maximum Building Height (two-story maximum) 35 ft Setbacks Front Yard • to living or porch loft • to front entry garage 18 ft • to side entry garage 15 ft Side Yard • typical 5 ft • at corners 8 ft Rear Yard loft Detached 2" Unit/Casita • Minimum rear yard setback 5 ft • Maximum building height 17 ft • Roof design Hip. Except a gable element may be used where second unit/casita does not abut another lot on the rear property line. • Roof pitch Minimum 4:12 sl aping away from all property lines so as to not overpower the adjacent neighbor. • Architectural design Consistent with main building including all materials. All elements of the main building shall be replicated on the second unit Icasita. • Detached 2"d Unit/Casita Lot Restrictions Not permitted on Lots 36 through 46 Permitted in side yard provided unit does not extended beyond rear of home on Lots 47 & 48. Usable Yard • size 500 sf contiguous flat • dimension 10 ft minimum any one side and 15 ft diameter clear within usable yard. Parkin Spaces a • Off-street covered (enclosed garage) 2 • additional space (may be on-street) 1 Specific Notes: Maximum lot coverage regulations are intended to establish the maximum lot area that may be covered with buildings and structures. Buildings and structures include: All land covered by principal buildings, garages and carports, permitted accessory structures, covered decks and gazebos, and other covered and enclosed areas. It does not include: Standard roof overhangs, cornices, eaves, uncovered decks, swimming pools, and paved areas such as walkways, driveways, patios, uncovered parking areas, or roads. (Dublin Zoning Orcinance Section 8.36.100). (2) Residential Building Heigbt: A 35-foot maximum two stories shall be measured from the finished grade at the midpoint of the building (as shown on a iagade or cross section view running parallel to the slope) to the top ridge of the structure's roof. However, architectural features and elements may exceed this provision by a 5-foot maximum, and a gable element may exceed this provision by a 5-foot maximum, subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. (3) Second Units/Casita - Detached a) A second unit is defined as having a kitchen/kitchenette find will require a dedicated parking space either within a garage or on the driveway. b) A casita will not include a kitchen and therefore an additional parking space shall not be required. Secondary dwelling units/casitas are subject to development standards provided herein and current Dublin Second Units Regulations (Dublin Zoning Ordinance Section 8.80), except that that maximum lot coverage shall be 50% for the primary dwelling unit and secondary dwelling unit/casita combined. General Residential Yard Provisions: (A) Setbacks - All setbacks are measured from the property lin,-. (B) Allowable Encroachments - Items such as (but not limi-.ed to) air conditioning condensers, porches, chimneys, bay windows, media centers, etc. may encroach into the required setback provided that a minimum of 3 feet flat and level path is m iintained to provide access past said items. (C) Except as prohibited under setback requirements above, roof eaves, pop-outs, architectural projects, and columns may encroach into required yard area setbacks subject to compliance with building codes. (D) Setbacks for accessory structures shall be in accordance with the building code in effect at the time of construction/installation. Noise generating equipment such as pool and spa equipment shall be acoustically screened or located outside of the setback area. 6 (E) On lots where minimum rear yard clear and level zone cannot be provided due to topography or vegetation constraints, decks of comparable area shall be allowed and required subject to Site Development Review. 6. Architectural Standards. The following five (5) architectural styles are provided in thy; Stage 2 Development Plan. The variety of architectural styles will provide visual interest and identity for each neighborhood street. The architectural elements will be articulated and themed to represent a variety of styles through color, texture, and massing details. The architectural style,,, along with design elements, are identified below: California Ranch: The California Ranch style is represented by low pitch roof in a hip, gable, or Dutch gable configuration with flat, shingle-like roof tiles. Exterior materials include wood siding, stucco, and board & batten accents combined with brick and stone accents, and post elements at a front porch. Architectural features include articulated windows, shutters, gables end details with wood truss shapes, louvers, and exposed rafter details. Colors and materials are light brown and charcoal blends with varied color accents. Monterey: The Monterey style; is characterized by low-pitched gable roof and cantilevered second story balconies covered by the principal roof of flat or "S" concrete tile. Wall materials typically are different for first and second floors generally consisting of extensive use of brick on the lower levels with stucco, wood siding, or board and batten above. Architectural elements include simple wooden posts and railings, shutters, window frames, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission blends with varied color accents. Early Californian: Early Californian is distinguished by sim ale massing and the principal roof material of concrete barrel tiles representing terracotta in color and form on a hip or gable roof above shorter overhangs. Stucco finished exteriors are acce:lted by arched doorways, shutters, wrought iron detailing, and gable end accents. Colors are California mission and brown blends with varied tone accents. English Country: Formal characteristics of the English County style are identified by steeper pitched roof elements with gable forms, stucco accent walls, use of brick accents, and half-timbered details. Stone features, bricked archw<<ys, decorative corbels, and multi-paned windows give this style its country image along with the hip and gable roof elements. Colors and materials are lighter charcoal and brown blends with earthy green tone accents. Craftsman: The Craftsman style features combinations of 'Aood shingled, board & batten, and clapboard siding with stone accent bases with square tapered columns. The long, low-pitched gable roofs of flat tile are supported by eave overhangs with decorative wooden braces and exposed rafter details. Colors and materials are charcoal and gray-brown blenc s with varied color accents. 7. Preliminary Landscaping Plan. The Preliminary Landscape Plans are as established in the fol'i owing Landscape Plans and further described below. The Preliminary Landscape Plans provide a generalized design layout that clearly demonstrates the character, massing, and compatibility with the Vesting Tentative Map. Masonry community walls shall be finished on both sides with materials consistent with those proposed for the side of the wall facing the public right-of-way. 7 i 4wa?,v?e ?l 1 4 d J` ; ?ilv axw. r:Ayru d`in;YVS ? t amsla ?Al.armwl 1.`? ?:, .»u.,ac REC?iV; Of `1011098 ou?[v auNr?rw N S??1.°d91fi' hU[O Um[U?e LQNCAf RAy : • Y= mss 41N wu xlFT[cA.e `= a a MefO fN1WT PLAN 'f RAN ?_ Wy+nNIN Py11My N fwxo hv.e. op yaYv ,av. a AC M.x ,+ iWl +, ?f »:W R?f `4M1 tar I-s ..:... ca u,?.wy.r... .call cyc>..y la. « e1.R aya [*axnoN NA.MfAIIw PINAM"M?MI!.s M+b .u, va raw w.. !. wa. p ; W?FKrsre I1'fM K ~. e. . y. . V+'. IM YC° v.u_ i.. x. n.M iv,.aW. YG SW R.va W .`ah ? . dr...w ? n•yy y ? ??w ,raww < »a Fa"xw?nvfw1a LG .! 1? WawL?^irz?u•xYauu' ?W H ?tia,y.A. M.SY M .n S. ? t?I,w •y0 W W A?? tYm sµuu Itlre fvu 1w.va ye Id w 6Yr:wx .r.a......+r.+..,.. kv Y.va. s9/ H W 9f, yax.4r?. Gapr YN tm® aLy w W ? as rrv.?.Wwnrvw vn .v.•+woxw.r ssa w',uR.YOxTV<,v4'6< StMi` Yp I _ J ITRGI. l1MWICED RAMIIND f A[Cl9M WRY RAN ATMDADS? NfWNBOMIY}DD IMMV RAN AT MDAMI ?[DEiTMIMl1'AAM AT eikTlfRlCl'A9NM :. 'R __sxa _ _ yay ..n.. n 'S:?.Yalwy..., 8 Y i..:V'4°:r.0".. ?... T F^t S'A5*4`i •'ax•4,>AS' :"a.° ,we+ y,..?w,p .ra aar-- "7k. PION VRw3. ...... . .+.,....«•. S _ YNRI.'A.:S VtTPr[41?t<g0.13 4 4y '"µ.?'drw errs ; a.*e ? ,. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EXHIBIT scAklalt c UDUW I Wa-Acgr 1'*. 8000 CITY CF OURIN ,I i 'r 1 y r*w1 -? ? j YXIMTY MAP a.A11..FIL? ?.m AI ? (??i?*? 11 I'I'gi 7?.1? . r r v 1 .., :ov I. 39 rt M.r _._. UIIBIIN 4.1La L r. GI 1 Y 1 9 LEBEMD ,.. ?v? ?xwwrr SECTION 5. APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF DUBLIN ZONING ORDINANCE Except as specifically provided in this Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan (PA 08-005), the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property shall be governed by the provisions of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance pursuant to section 8.32.06O.C. The provisions of the existing Planned Development Zoning for the remaining portions of the Schaefer Ranch project not amended by this resolution shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days fro n and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of 2008, by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G:\PA#\2008\PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch South\City Council\CC Ord PD Stage 2 Schaefer.doc 10 RESOLUTION NO. 08 - XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 8000 FOR A 41.541-ACRE AREA WITHIN THE PROJECT KNOWN AS SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH (APNs 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 9,11-2837-010 to 021) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LL C, submitted an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA), PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 8000 for the project known as Schaefer Ranch South located at the southeast and southwest corners of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Rsmch Road; and WHEREAS, VTM 8000 would subdivide approximately 41.541-acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road into 140 single-family residential lots; and WHEREAS, in 1998 the Planning Commission approved VTM 6765 (Resolution 98-38) and created 466 residential lots, and commercial, parks, and public/semi -public parcels for Schaefer Ranch; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation =Measures contained in the Schaefer Ranch EIR and the Conditions of Approval for the VTM required the project proponent to obtain permits from the various environmental regulatory agencies for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project. The project proponent successfully obtained approval from the environmental agencies. However, the approval from the various agencies required the preservation of sensitive habitat for protected wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in the need to reconfigure a portion of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21, 2004, and directed Staff to work with the Applicant to prepare Final Map 6765 based on the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. Final Map 6765 was deemed complete in December 2006 and was recorded on March 8, 2007; and WHEREAS, Final Map 6765 created 12 estate lots, 24 single-family lots, and a 5.69-acre commercial parcel on approximately 41.541-acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road; and WHEREAS, VTM 8000 would re-subdivide the 41.541-acres located at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road and create 140 single-family lots; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with the State CEQA Guidelines require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impacts and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is a modification to the Schaefer Ranch Project already approved by the City. The impacts of the Schaefer Ranch Project were analyzed in the certified Schaefer Ranch EIR. Since the Schaefer Ranch EIR has been certified, no further environmental review for Attachment 4 proposed changes to the Schaefer Ranch Project are required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) unless the conditions for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under Public Resources Code Section 21166 (Section 21166) and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15163 (Sections 15162/3) are met; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Staff prepared -n Initial Study, included herein by reference, to determine if further environmental review was requires. under Sections 21166 and 15162/3. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR under these sections were met. Unc er CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Addendum and Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission together with the Schaefer Ranch EIR at a properly noticed public hearing on the project on October 14, 2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council approval of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the Project and recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the GPA and the PD Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and further recommending that the Planning Commission approve VTM; 8000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consid,;r all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions, all of which are incorporated herein by reference: Resolution 08-xx recommending that the City Council adopted the CEQA Addendum to the 1996 EIR, Resolution 08-xx recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Resolution 08-xx recommending that the City Council approve the PD-Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding Vesting Tentative Map 8000: A. The proposed Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and related ordinances. B. The design and improvements of the proposed Vesting Tentative Map are consistent with the General Plan, as amended, as they relate to the subject property in that it is a subdivision for a single-family residential and open space development. C. The Vesting Tentative Map is consistent with the proposed PD-Planned Development Zoning with Stage 2 Development Plan (PA 08-005) and is tr erefore consistent with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance. 2 D. The project site is located adjacent to major roads, including Dublin Boulevard, Schaefer Ranch Road, and I-580 and has relatively flat topography and is therefore physically suitable for the type and intensity of residential development proposed. E. With the incorporation of all applicable action programs and mitigation measures of the Schaefer Ranch Environmental Impact Report, the desigr, of the Vesting Tentative Map will not cause environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife of their habitat or cause public health concerns. F. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, or access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The City Engineer has reviewed the map and title report and has not found any co-iflicting easements of this nature. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby conditionally approve Vesting Tentative Map 8000, PA 08-005 to subdivide approximately 41.541-acres (APNs 941- 2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021) at the southwest corner of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road) into 140 single-family lots, subject to City Council adoption of the CEQA Addendum, and City Council approval of the related General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan no later than January 31, 2:009. This approval shall conform generally to Vesting Tentative Tract 8000 prepared by Isakson & Associates, dated received by the Community Development Department on October 2, 2008, labeled Exhibit A to this Resolution and consisting of two (2) sheets ("Vesting; Tentative Map and "Preliminary Grading Plan") stamped approved except as specifically modified by the Conditions of Approval contain.-d below. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be court)lied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes rpresent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval. [PL.] Planning, [B] Building, f PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [ADM] Administration/City Attorney [FIN] Finance, [F] Alameda County Fire Department, [DSRI Dublin San Ramon Services District.,,[ CO] Alameda County Depart lent of Environmental Health, [Z71 Zone 7. NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: SOURCE GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Fees. Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable B, PL, Issuance of Standard fees in effect, including, but not limited to, Planning ADM, P`'V Building Permits fees, Building fees, Traffic Impact Fees, TVTC fees, Dublin San Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Dublin Unified School District School Impact fees (per agreement between Developer and School District), -Fire Facilities Impact fees, Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees, Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; or any other fee that may be adopted and applicable. 3 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 2. Required Permits. Applicant/Developer shall PL/PW Issuance of Standard comply with the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance Building Permits and obtain all necessary permits if required by other applicable agencies (Alameda County Flood Control District Zone 7, California Department of Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Quality Control Board, Etc.) and shall submit copies of the permits to the Department of Public Works. 3. Tract 6765 Parcels J and K Use Restrictions: PL/PW Approval of Final City Developer shall create a use restriction, acceptable to Map Attorney the City Manager and City Attorney, that is applicable to Parcels J and K shown on the map for Tract 6765 and that is enforceable by the City. The use restriction shall limit the use. of Parcels J and K to school, daycare, pre-school, and child-related services operated by public benefit corporations or other non- profit entities. Notwithstanding; the foregoing, as Developer has reserved Parcel K for a potential fire station site, the use restriction shall not prevent the City from using Parcel K for a fire station site. The use restriction shall further provide that it may not be amended without the approval of the City Council of the City of Dublin. PLANNING 4. Inclusionary Zoning: Prior to approval of Site PL SDR approval or PL Development Review or recordation of the first recordation of the phased Final Map, whichever occurs first, the owner first Final Map, or owners of all of the property subject to this vesting whichever occurs tentative map shall enter into an Affordable Housing first. Agreement with the City for the entire Vesting Tentative Map area, which agreement shall be recorded against such area and against any other property where Developer proposes to construct off- site affordable units if approved by the City Council pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code section 8.68.040.B. Such agreement shall include but is not limited to providing detail regarding the number of affordable units required, specify the schedule of construction of affordable units, set forth the developer's manner of compliance with City of Dublin Inclusionary Zoning Regulations and impose appropriate resale controls and/or rental restrictions on the affordable units. If the agreement provides for construction of units off-site, as provided in DMC section 8.68.040.13, it shall require City Council NO. CONDITION TEXT RESF. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: approval and Council findings as required by said section and shall include provision for security adequate to assure construction of the off-site affordable units concurrently with the completion of construction of the market rate units to be constructed on the lots created by the vesting tentative map. 5. Public Service Easement. The following note shall PL/PVI Final Subdivision PL be included in Owners Statement on the Final Map: Map "The areas designated "Public Service Easement" (PSE) as shown upon said map are hereby dedicated to the Public. Said easement is for the purpose of installation, construction and maintenance of utility structures, street trees, and appurtenances, including but not limited to, street lights and all appurtenances to the street lights. The maintenance of the street trees is the responsibility of the adjacent homeowner. The street trees are owned by the City." 6. Landscape Maintenance. Landscape Maintenance PL/PVI Final Subdivision PL shall be in accordance with the Landscape Map and Ongoing Maintenance Exhibit. 7. Side Yard Landscape Maintenance. Side yard PL Final Subdivision PL landscaping for corner lots (i.e. Lots 1, 12, 43, 55, 75, Map and Ongoing 76, 83, 87, 90, 97, 98, 101, 107, 115, 116, 128, 129, 140) shall be maintained by the HOA and such maintenance shall be identified in the CC&Rs. PUBLIC WORKS - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 8. General Public Works Conditions of Approval: PW Ongoing PW Developer shall comply with the City of Dublin General Public Works Conditions of Approval for Tract 8000 contained below unless specifically modified by these Conditions of Approval. 9. Clarifications and Changes to the Conditions. In PW Final Subdivision PW the event that there needs to be clarification to these Conditions of Approval, the Directors of Community Development and Public Works have the authority to clarify the intent of these Conditions of Approval to the Applicant/Developer by a written document signed by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works and placed in the project file. The Directors also have the. authority to make minor modifications to these conditions without going to a public hearing in order for the Developer to fulfill needed improvements or mitigations resulting from impacts of this project. 10. Standard Public Works Conditions of Approval. PW Final Subdivision PW Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: City of Dublin Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval. In the event of a conflict between the Public Works Standard Conditions of Approval and these Conditions, these Conditions shall prevail. 11. Conditions of Approval. A copy of the Conditions of PW Final Subdivision PW Approval which has been annotated how each condition is satisfied shall be included with the submittals to the Public Works Department for the review of the Final Map and plans. 12. Substantial Conformance. The Final Subdivision PW Final Subdivision PW Map shall be substantially in conformance with Vesting Tentative Map 8000 unless otherwise modified by the conditions contained herein. 13. Development Agreement/Expiration. The approval PW Final Subdivision PW of this Tentative Map shall be predicated upon and pursuant to the terms set forth in the Development Agreement to be approved by the City of Dublin. The Tentative Map shall expire at the standard time of two and one half (2 %2) years as set forth in the Dublin Municipal Code and in the regulations of Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act and as provided in the Development Agreement. In the event of conflict between the terms of the Development Agreement and the Conditions of Approval contained herein, the terms of the Development Agreement shall prevail. 14. Final Subdivision Map 8000. The PW Final Subdivision PW Applicant/Developer shall have a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor prepare the Final Subdivision Maps subdividing the parcels in conformance with Vesting Tentative Map 8000 prepared by Isakson and Assoc. and in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin standards. The map shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer/Public Works Director prior to recordation. 15. Title Report. A current preliminary title report (not PW Final Subdivision PW more than 6 months old as of date of submittal) Map together with copies of all recorded deeds, easements and other encumbrances and copies of Final Maps for adjoining properties and off-site easements shall be submitted for reference as deemed necessary by the City Engineer/Director of Public Works. 16. Right-of Way Dedication. The Applicant shall PW Final Subdivision PW dedicate right-of-way to the -public on the Final Map Subdivision Map or by separate instrument as follows: NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 10-foot wide right-of-way dedication as shown along the Dublin Boulevard project frontage for streetscape purposes. Any other right-of-way dedications deemed reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 17. GHAD Dedication. The Applicant shall dedicate to PW Final Subdivision PW the Schaefer Ranch Geologic: Hazard Abatement Map District on the Final Subdivision Map or by separate instrument as follows: Parcels B and C for private open space. Any other dedications deemed reasonably necessary by the GHAD Manager. 18. Easement Dedications. The Applicant shall d PW Final Subdivision PW easements on the Final Subdivision Map or by s Map instrument as follows: a. Public Access Easements (PAE) over the following areas: 1. Parcels A and Al (the Paseo Trail and Greenbelt) 2. Stairway area connecting Court E with the perimeter trail 3. 8-foot wide minimum easement for the perimeter trail b. Public Service Easement (PSE) as shown on the vesting tentative map. c. A 10-foot wide minimum Public Storm Drain Easement (SDE) as necessary for the storm drain line within Lot 70. d. A 15-foot wide minimum Storm Drain Easement (SDE) as necessary for the storm drain line shown within Parcel C. e. Easements as required by DSRSD. f. Any other easements deemed reasonably necessary by the City Engineer/Public Works Director or GHAD Manager during final design and/or construction. 19. Fill settlement monitoring. In conjunction with the PW Issuance of PW submittal of the Grading Plan for plan check, the Grading Permit Applicant shall submit a report indicating the amount of fill settlement that has taken place since the approval of the Tentative Map and the future settlement potential of the site. The Director of Public Works shall review and approve this report prior to the issuance of Grading permits. Areas encountering too NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: much fill settlement (as determined by the Director of Public Works) may have building permits withheld until appropriate measures are taken to correct the settlement areas. 20. Overland Release Court D. The intersection of PW Issuance of PW Court D and Road 2 shall be re-graded to remove the Grading Permit proposed sump condition and allow an overland release northward along Road 1. 21. Storm Drain Line Easement Area - Lot 70. The PW Issuance of PW 10-foot wide easement area shall be graded to 4:1 or Grading Permit flatter to allow adequate access for future maintenance or repair activities. The easement shall be clear of sideyard fence, retaining walls or other permanent structures. 22. Traffic Calming Measures. The Applicant shall PW Improvements to PW implement traffic calming measures as directed by the be guaranteed Traffic Engineer along eastbound Dublin Boulevard in prior to approval the vicinity of Roys Hill Lane (California Highlands) of Final as justified for safety reasons. Proposed traffic Subdivision Map calming measures may include but are not limited to: signing, striping, flashers, concrete bulbouts with appurtenant landscaping, and raised or - textured paving. 23. Ownership and Maintenance of Improvements: PW Final Map and PW Ownership, dedications on final map, and ongoing maintenance of street right-of-ways, common area parcels, and open space areas shall be by the City of Dublin, the Homeowner's Association, and the Geologic Hazard Abatement District, as shown on the Open Space Maintenance Diagram. 24. Landscape Features within Public Right of Way. PW First Final Map; PW The Developer shall enter into an "Agreement for Modify with Long Term Encroachments" Nvith the City and/or Successive Final GHAD to allow the HOA to maintain the landscape Maps and decorative features within public Right of Way including frontage & median landscaping, decorative pavements and special features (i.e., walls, portals, benches, etc.) as generally shown on Preliminary Landscape Plans. The Agreement shall identify the ownership of the special features and maintenance responsibilities. The Homeowner's Association will be responsible for maintaining; the surface of all decorative pavements including restoration required as the result of utility repairs. 25. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). PW First Final Map; PW A Homeowners Association shall be formed by Modify with NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: recordation of a declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Successive Final and Restrictions to govern use and maintenance of the Maps landscape features within the public right of way contained in the Agreement for Long Term Encroachments and the frontage landscaping along Dublin Boulevard, interior streets, paseo trail and greenbelt, and side yard landscaping for corner lots. Said declaration shall set forth the Association name, bylaws, rules and regulations. The CC&Rs shall ensure that there is adequate provision for the maintenance, in good repair and on a regular basis, of the landscaping & irrigation, decorative pavements, median islands, fences, walls, drainage, lighting, signs and other related improvements. The CC&Rs shall also contain all other items required by these conditions. The Developer shall submit a copy of the CC&R document to the City for review and approval. The Developer at its option may annex lots created under Final Map(s) under Vesting Tentative Map 8000 into the existing HOA created under Tract Map 6765. The amendment to the CC&Rs for the existing HOA shall be reviewed by the City. 26. Public Streets: Developer shall construct street PW Each Final Map PW improvements and offer for dedication to the City of Dublin the rights of way for Dublin Boulevard and interior streets as shown on the Tentative Map, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 27. The Developer shall comply with the Subdivision Map PW Ongoing PW Act, the City of Dublin Subdivision, Zoning, and Standard Grading Ordinances, the City of Dublin Public Works Conditions Standards and Policies, and all building and fire codes and ordinances in effect at the time of building permit. All public improvements constructed by Developer and to be dedicated to the City are hereby identified as "public works" under Labor Code section 1771. Accordingly, Developer, in constructing such improvements, shall comply with the Prevailing Wage Law (Labor Code. Sects. 1720 and following) 28. The Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold PW Ongoing PW harmless the City of Dublin and its agents, officers, Standard and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding Conditions against the City of Dublin. or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City of Dublin or its advisory agency, NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: appeal board, Planning Commission, City Council, Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator, or any other department, committee, or agency of the City related to this project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that The Developer's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the City's promptly notifying The Developer of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the City's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 29. Any water well, cathodic protection well, or PW Approval of PW exploratory boring on the project property must be Improvement Standard properly abandoned, backfilled, or maintained in Plans or Final Map Conditions accordance with applicable groundwater protection ordinances. For additional information contact Alameda County Flood Control, Zone 7. Agreements and Bonds 30. The Developer shall enter into a Tract Improvement PW First Final Map PW Agreement with the City for all tract improvements. and Successive Standard Maps Conditions 31. The Developer shall provide performance (100%), and PW First Final Map PW labor & material (100%) securities to guarantee the and Successive Standard tract improvements, approved by the City Engineer, Maps Conditions prior to execution of the Tract Improvement Agreement and approval of the Final Map. (Note: Upon acceptance of the improvements, the performance security may be replaced with a maintenance bond that is 25% of the value of the performance security.) Fees 32. The Developer shall pay all applicable fees in effect at PW Parkland In-Lieu PW the time of building permit issuance including, but not Fees Due Prior to Standard limited to, Planning fees, Building fees, Dublin San Filing Each Final Conditions Ramon Services District fees, Public Facilities fees, Map; Other Fees Dublin Unified School District: School Impact fees Required with (per agreement between Developer and School Issuance of District), Public Works Traffic Impact fees, Alameda Building Permits County Fire Services fees; Noise Mitigation fees, Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu fees; Alameda County Flood and Water Conservation District (Zone 7) Drainage and Water Connection fees; and any other fees as noted in the Development Agreement. 33. The Developer shall dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu PW Each Final Map PW fees in the amounts and at the times set forth in City of Standard 10 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: Dublin Resolution No. 60-99, or in any resolution Conditions revising these amounts. and as implemented by the Administrative Guidelines adopted by Resolution 195- 99. Permits 34. Developer shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from PW Start of Work PW the Public Works Department for all construction Standard activity within the public right-of-way of any street Conditions where the City has accepted the improvements. At the discretion of the City Engineer an encroachment for work specifically included in an Improvement Agreement may not be required. 35. Developer shall obtain a Grading / Sitework Permit PW Start of Work PW from the Public Works Department for all private Standard grading and site improvements. Conditions Submittals 36. All submittals of plans and Final Maps shall comply PW Approval of PW with the requirements of the "City of Dublin Public Improvement Standard Works Department Improvement Plan Submittal Plans or Final Map Conditions Requirements", and the "City oi' Dublin Improvement Plan Review Check List". 37. The Developer will be responsible for submittals and PW Approval of PW reviews to obtain the approvals of all applicable Improvement Standard participating non-City agencies. The Alameda County Plans or Final Map Conditions Fire Department and the Dublin San Ramon Services District shall approve and sign the Improvement Plans. 38. Developer shall submit a Geotechnical Report, which PW Approval of PW includes street pavement sections and grading Improvement Standard recommendations. Plans, Grading Conditions Plans, or Final Map 39. Developer shall provide the Public Works Department PW Acceptance of PW a digital vectorized file of the "master" files for the Improvements and Standard project when the Final Map has been approved. Release of Bonds Conditions Digital raster copies are not acceptable. The digital vectorized files shall be in Ai toCAD 14 or higher drawing format. Drawing units shall be decimal with the precision of the Final Map. All objects and entities in layers shall be colored by layer and named in English. All submitted drawings shall use the Global Coordinate System of USA, California, NAD 83 California State Plane, Zone III, and U.S. foot. Final Ma 40. The Final Map shall be substantially in conformance PW Approval of Final PW with the Tentative Map approved with this Map Standard NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: application, unless otherwise modified by these Conditions conditions. 41. All rights-of-way and easement; dedications required PW Approval of Final PW by the Tentative Map including the Public Service Map Standard Easement shall be shown on the Final Map. Conditions 42. Street names shall be assigned to each public/private PW Approval of Final PW street pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.08. The Map Standard Developer shall propose a list of preferred and Conditions alternate street names for review and approval by the City and all interested outside agencies. Street names must not match or be closely similar to existing street names within Alameda County. The approved street names shall be indicated on the Final Map. Easements 43. The Developer shall grant to the City of Dublin PW Approval of PW easements for traffic signal detectors, boxes conduit, Improvement Standard etc. at all private streets and driveways entrances that Plans or Conditions will be signalized. Appropriate Final Map 44. The Developer shall obtain abandonment from all PW Approval of PW applicable public agencies of existing easements and Improvement Standard right of ways that will no longer be used. Plans or Conditions Appropriate Final Map 45. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain PW Approval of PW rights-of-entry from the adjacent property owners for Improvement Standard any improvements on their property. The easements Plans or Conditions and/or rights-of-entry shall be in writing and copies Appropriate Final furnished to the City Engineer. Map 46. All public sidewalks must be within City right-of-way PW Approval of PW or in a pedestrian access easement unless approved by Improvement Standard the City Engineer. Plans or Conditions Appropriate Final Map Grading 47. The Grading Plan shall be in conformance with the PW Approval of PW recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, the Grading Plans or Standard approved Tentative Map and/or Site Development Issuance of Conditions Review, and the City design standards & ordinances. Grading Permits, In case of conflict between the soil engineer's and Ongoing recommendations and City ordinances, the City Engineer shall determine which shall apply. 48. A detailed Erosion Control Plan shall be included with PW Approval of PW the Grading Plan approval. The plan shall include Grading Plans or Standard detailed design, location, and maintenance criteria of Issuance of Conditions all erosion and sedimentation control measures. Grading Permits, 12 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: and Ongoing Improvements 49. The public improvements shall be constructed PW Approval of PW generally as shown on the Tentative Map and/or Site Improvement Standard Development Review. However, the approval of the Plans or Start of Conditions Tentative Map and/or Site Development Review is not Construction, and an approval of the specific design of the drainage, Ongoing sanitary sewer, water, traffic circulation, and street improvements. 50. All public improvements shall conform to the City of PW Approval of PW Dublin Standard Plans and design requirements and as Improvement Standard approved by the City Engineer. Plans or Start of Conditions Construction, and Ongoing 51. The Developer shall install all traffic signs and PW Approval of PW pavement marking as required by the City Engineer. Improvement Standard Plans or Start of Conditions Construction, and Ongoing 52. Developer shall construct all potable water and PW Approval of PW sanitary sewer facilities required to serve the project in Improvement Standard accordance with DSRSD master plans, standards, Plans or Start of Conditions specifications and requirements. Construction, and Ongoing 53. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the PW Approval of PW Alameda County Fire Department. A raised reflector Improvement Standard blue traffic marker shall be installed in the street Plans or Start of Conditions opposite each hydrant. Construction, and Ongoing 54. Street light standards and luminaries shall be designed PW Occupancy of PW and installed per approval of the City Engineer. The Units or Standard maximum voltage drop for streetlights is 5%. Acceptance of Conditions Improvements 55. All new traffic signals shall be interconnected with PW Occupancy of PW other new signals within the development and to the Units or Standard existing City traffic signal system by hard wire. Acceptance of Conditions Improvements 56. Two empty 3" conduits with pull ropes, to PW Occupancy of PW accommodate future extension of the traffic Units or Standard interconnect system and for School District uses, shall Acceptance of Conditions be installed along any project arterial street frontage. Improvements The extent of this work to be determined by the City Engineer. 57. The Developer shall construct bits stops and shelters at PW Occupancy of PW the locations designated and approved by the LAVTA Units or Standard and the City Engineer. The Developer shall pay the Acceptance of Conditions 13 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: cost of procuring and installing these improvements. Improvements 58. The Developer shall furnish and install City Standard PW Occupancy of PW street name signs for the project as required by the Units or Standard City Engineer. Acceptance of Conditions Improvements 59. Street trees, of at least a 24" box size or as otherwise PW Occupancy of PW determined by the Community Development Director, Units or Standard shall be planted along the street frontages. The Acceptance of Conditions varieties and locations of the trees to be approved by Improvements the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 60. Any decorative pavement installed within City right- PW Occupancy of PW of-way requires approval of the City Engineer. Where Units or Standard decorative paving is installed in public streets, pre- Acceptance of Conditions formed traffic signal loops and sleeves to Improvements accommodate future utilities shall put under the decorative pavement. Maintenance costs of the decorative paving shall be included in a landscape and lighting maintenance assessment district or other funding mechanism acceptable to the City Engineer. 61. Roof drainage shall drain across bio-swales or into PW Occupancy of PW bio-filters prior to entering the storm drain system. Units or Standard The landscaping and drainage improvements in the Acceptance of Conditions bio-swale and bio-filters shall be appropriate for water Improvements quality treatment. The City Engineer may exempt specific roof leaders from this requirement if space limitations prevent adequate water treatment without creating hazards, nuisance or structural concerns. Concentrated flows will not be allowed to drain across public sidewalks. 62. Developer shall construct gas, electric, cable TV and PW Occupancy of PW communication improvements within the fronting Units or Standard streets and as necessary to serve the project and the Acceptance of Conditions future adjacent parcels as approved by the City Improvements Engineer and the various Public Utility agencies. 63. All electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV utilities, PW Occupancy of PW shall be underground in accordance with the City Units or Standard policies and ordinances. All utilities shall be located Acceptance of Conditions and provided within public utility easements and sized Improvements to meet utility company standards. 64. All utility vaults, boxes and structures, unless PW Occupancy of PW specifically approved otherwise by the City Engineer, Units or Standard shall be underground and placed in landscape areas Acceptance of Conditions and screened from public view. All utility vaults, Improvements boxes and structures shall be shown on landscape plans and approved by the City Engineer and 14 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: Community Development Director prior to construction. Construction 65. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented PW Ongoing as PW between October 15th and April 15th unless otherwise Needed Standard allowed in writing by the City Engineer. The Conditions Developer will be responsible fr)r maintaining erosion and sediment control measures for one year following the City's acceptance of the subdivision improvements. 66. If archaeological materials are encountered during PW Ongoing as PW construction, construction within 100 feet of these Needed Standard materials shall be halted until a professional Conditions Archaeologist who is certified by the Society of California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures. 67. Construction activities, including; the maintenance and PW Ongoing as PW warming of equipment, shall be limited to Monday Needed Standard through Friday, and non-City holidays, between the Conditions hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 68. Developer shall prepare a construction noise PW Start of PW management plan that identifies measures to be taken Construction; Standard to minimize construction noise on surrounding Implementation Conditions developed properties. The plan shall include hours of Ongoing as construction operation, use of mufflers on construction Needed equipment, speed limit for construction traffic, haul routes and identify a noise monitor. Specific noise management measures shall be included in the project plans and specifications. 69. Developer shall prepare a plan for construction traffic PW Start of PW interface with public traffic on any existing public Construction; Standard street. Construction traffic and parking may be Implementation Conditions subject to specific requirements by the City Engineer. Ongoing as Needed 70. The Developer shall be responsible for controlling any PW Ongoing PW rodent, mosquito, or other pest problem due to Standard construction activities. Conditions 71. The Developer shall be responsible for watering or PW Start of PW other dust-palliative measures to control dust as Construction; Standard conditions warrant or as directed by the City Engineer. Implementation Conditions Ongoing as Needed 72. The Developer shall provide the Public Works PW Issuance of PW 15 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: Department with a letter from a registered civil Building Permits Standard engineer or surveyor stating that the building pads or Acceptance of Conditions have been graded to within 0.1 feet of the grades Improvements shown on the approved Grading Plans, and that the top & toe of banks and retaining walls are at the locations and/or Site Development Review shown on the approved Grading Plans. NPDES 73. Prior to any clearing or grading, the Developer shall PW Start of Any PW provide the City evidence that a Notice of Intent Construction Standard (NOI) has been, sent to the California State Water Activities Conditions Resources Control Board per the requirements of the NPDES. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Public Works Department and be kept at the construction site. 74. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program PW SWPPP to be PW (SWPPP) for the operation and maintenance of the Prepared Prior to Standard project shall identify the Best Management Practices Approval of Conditions (BMPs) appropriate to the project construction Improvement activities. The SWPPP shall include the erosion Plans: control measures in accordance with the regulations Implementation outlined in the most current version of the ABAG Start of Erosion and Sediment Control. Handbook or State Construction and Construction Best Management Practices Handbook. Ongoing as Needed 75. The Developer is responsible for ensuring that all PW First Final Map; PW contractors implement all storm water pollution Modify as needed Standard prevention measures in the SWPPP. with Successive Conditions Maps FIRE 76. Emergency vehicle access roadways must have a ffF Approval of Final F minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet (14 feet for Map one way streets) and an unobstructed, vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. The radius for emergency vehicle turns shall be based on a 42 ft. radius. Roadways under 36 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on one side; roadways under ' 28 feet wide shall be posted with signs or shall have red curbs painted with labels on both sides of the street as follows: "NO STOPPING, FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1". CFC 902.2.2.1. 77. The maximum dead end emergency vehicle access F Approval of Final F road without an approved turn, around is 150 feet. Map Cul-de-sacs that are needed for an emergency vehicle 16 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: access turn around shall be a minimum of 80 feet with no parking. CFC902.2.2.4. 78. The following number of access roads shall be F Approval of Final F provided per the Dublin Fire Code (based on the start Map of construction): 1-25 Units: One public or private access road. 26-74 Units: One public or private access road and one emergency access road. When more than one access road is required, the roadways shall be remotely located to provide a separate and distinct means of access and egress. 75+ Units: A minimum of two public or private access roads. When more than one access road is .required, the roadways shall be remotely located to provide a separate and distinct means of access and egress. 79. Gate Approvals. Fencing and gates that cross F Approval of Final F pedestrian access and exit paths as well as vehicle Map entrance and exit roads need to be approved for fire department access and egress as well as exiting provisions where such is applicable. Plans need to be submitted that clearly show the fencing and gates and details of such. This should be clearly incorporated as part of the site plan with details provided as necessary. CFC 501.3 80. Hydrants & Fire Flows. Show the location of any F Approval of F on-site fire hydrants and any fire hydrants that are Improvement along the property frontage as well as the closest Plans or Final Map hydrants to each side of the property that are located along the access roads that serves this property. Hydrant spacing to meet DSRSI) minimum residential distance. Prove a letter from the water company indicating what the available fire flow is to this property. CFC 508. 81. All portions of the exterior walls of the homes shall be F Issuance of F within 150 feet of an emergency vehicle access road. Building Permits The distance is measured as someone would be able to walk and shall consider parked cars. Sloped areas beyond the access roads needed for emergency access shall be permanent walkway or stair as required by the Fire Department. CFC 902.2.1, 902.3.1 82. The maximum grade allowed for a Fire Department F Issuance of F access road is 12%. CFC Appendix Improvement Plans 17 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: SOURCE 83. All emergency vehicle access roads (first lift of F Issuance of F asphalt) and the public water supply including all Building Permits hydrants shall be in place prior to vertical construction or combustible storage on site. 84. The homes that are adjacent to open space or F Issuance of F undeveloped land shall comply with the Wildfire Building Permits Management. The following is a partial list of the for affected lots requirements of the Wildfire Management Plan: The homes shall be provided with an automatic sprinkler system. The roof covering shall be class A. Eaves shall be protected on the exposed underside by materials approved for one-hour rated fire resistive construction. Fascias are required and must be protected on the backside by materials approved for one-hour rated fire resistive construction or 2-inch (51mm) nominal dimensional lumber. Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of non- combustible material. Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall be constructed with materials approved for one-hour rated construction on the exterior side or with non- combustible materials. Exception: Heavy timber construction. Exterior windows, window walls and skylights shall be tempered glass or multilayered glazed panels. Exterior doors, other than vehicular access doors to garages, shall be non-combustible or solid core 1-3/4 inch thick. When windows are within doors, they shall be of tempered glass or multilayered glazed panels. Attic ventilation openings, foundation and under floor vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches each. Such vents shall be covered with non-combustible corrosion resistant mesh with openings not to exceed '/4 inch. Detached accessory structures located less than 50 feet from a building containing habitable space shall have exterior walls constructed with materials approved for one-hour construction or constructed with non- combustible materials on the exterior side. Fences constructed of combustible materials shall be separated from the perimeter oi'buildings containing habitable space by connecting to buildings with a masonry pilaster as shown in the Wildfire 18 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: Management Plan. Pilaster are not required if a noncombustible fence is provided on the side(s) facing the open space and additional 10 feet towards the home. 85. The landscape plans for home adjacent to open space F Issuance of F or undeveloped land shall comply with the standards Building Permits for vegetation establishment and maintenance as for affected lots required in the Wildfire Management Plan: Plants within 3 feet of the homes shall be irrigated flowers only. The area within 3 feet shall have non- combustible materials only (no combustible mulch). Plants 3 to 15 feet from the home shall only be those listed for use in Areas A and B in the plant species table. Trees shall be a minimum of 4 feet from the homes. Trees between 4 ft and 30 feet of the homes shall have a minimum of 10 feet between crowns. The trees shall be limited to those types listed for use in Areas B through D in the plant species table. Plants 15 to 30 feet from the home shall only be those listed for use in Areas A through C in the plant species table. The distances increase for areas with slopes over 30%. See the Wildfire Management Plan. Plant types shall be reviewed by the City's landscape consultant. 86. The landscape shall be maintained year round to F Ongoing in F comply with the Wildfire Management Plan. Trees conformance with between 4 and 15 feet from the homes shall have their the Wildfire limbs pruned 10 feet from grade or 1/3 of the total live Management crown height. Trees between 15 and 30 feet from the Program homes shall have their limbs pruned 6 to 10 feet from grade. The distances increase for areas with slopes over 30%. See the Wildfire Management Plan. 87. Grasses in the undeveloped land shall be kept mowed F Ongoing on a F to a height of 4 inches in the Fire buffer zone. The yearly basis in fire buffer zone is defined as follows: 15 feet beyond conformance with the maintenance road; 45 feet beyond the fence lines Fire Department where there is no maintenance road; 15 feet beyond regulations the public roads. The buffer zone shall be defined by a non-combustible fence. 88. The project shall comply with the applicable Building F Ongoing F and Fire Codes. Site and Building plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Fire Department. 19 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 89. The Applicant/Developer shall comply with all F Ongoing F Alameda County Fire Department . (ACFD) rules, regulations, City of Dublin standards, including minimum standards for emergency access roads and payment of applicable fees including City of Dublin Fire facility fees. DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 90. Prior to issuance of any building permit, complete DSRS::) Issuance of DSRSD improvement plans shall be submitted to DSRSD that building permit conform to the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services District Code, the DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications, and Drawings for Design and Installation of Water and Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 91. All mains shall be sized to provide sufficient capacity DSRSD Approval of DSRSD to accommodate future flow demands in addition to Improvement each development project's demand. Layout and Plans or Final Map sizing of mains shall be in conformance with DSRSD utility master planning. 92. Sewers shall be designed to operate by gravity flow to DSRSD Approval of DSRSD DSRSD's existing sanitary sewer system. Pumping of Improvement sewage is discouraged and may only be allowed under Plans or Final Map extreme circumstances following a case by case review with DSRSD staff. Any pumping station will require specific review and approval by DSRSD of preliminary design reports, design criteria, and final plans and specifications. The DSRSD reserves the right to require payment of present worth 20 year maintenance costs as well as other conditions within a separate agreement with the Applicant for any project that requires a pumping station. 93. Domestic and fire protection waterline systems for DSRSD Approval of DSRSD Tracts or Commercial Developments shall be designed Improvement to be looped or interconnected to avoid dead end Plans or Final Map sections in accordance with requirements of the DSRSD Standard Specifications and sound engineering practice. 94. DSRSD policy requires public water and sewer lines DSRSD Approval of DSRSD to be located in public streets rather than in off-street Improvement locations to the fullest extent possible. If unavoidable, Plans or Final Map then public sewer or water easements must be established over the alignment of each public sewer or water line in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance and/or replacement. 20 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: 95. All easement dedications for DSRSD facilities shall be DSRSD Approval of Final DSRSD by separate instrument irrevocably offered to DSRSD Map or by offer of dedication on the Final Map. 96. Prior to approval by the City of a grading permit or a DSRSD Grading Permit, DSRSD Site Development permit, the locations and widths of Improvement all proposed easement dedications for water and sewer Plans or Final Map lines shall be submitted to and approved by DSRSD. 97. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits, Services District, whichever comes first, all utility approval of connection fees including DSRSD and Zone 7, plan Improvement checking fees, inspections fees, connection fees, and Plans or approval fees associated with a wastewater discharge permit of Final Map shall be paid to DSRSD in accordance with the rates and schedules established in the DSRSD Code. 98. Prior to issuance by the City of any Building Permit or DSRSD Issuance of DSRSD Construction Permit by the Dublin San Ramon Building Permits, Services District, whichever comes first, all approval of improvements plans for DSRSD facilities shall be Improvement signed by the District Engineer. Each drawing of Plans or approval improvement plans shall contain a signature block for of Final Map the District Engineer indicating approval of the sanitary sewer or water facilities shown. Prior to approval by the district engineer, the Applicant shall pay all required DSRSD fees, and provide an engineer's estimate of construction costs for the sewer and water systems, a performance bond, a. one-year maintenance bond, and a comprehensive general liability insurance policy in the -amounts and forms that are acceptable to DSRSD. The Applicant shall allow at least 15 working days for final improvement drawing review by DSRSD before signature by the District Engineer. 99. No sewer line or waterline construction shall be DSRSD Ongoing DSRSD permitted unless the proper utility construction permit has been issued by DSRSD. A construction permit will only be issued after all of the items in Condition No. 11 have been satisfied. 100. The Applicant shall hold DSRSD, its Board of DSRSD Ongoing DSRSD Directors, commissions, employees, and agents of DSRSD harmless and indemnifv and defend the same from any litigation, claims, or fines resulting from the construction and completion of the project. POLICE 101. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable City of PO Occupancy and PO Dublin Residential Security Requirements. All ongoing 21 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: residential buildings shall be in accordance with the currently adopted Uniform Building Security Code pursuant to Chapter 7.32.220 of the Dublin Municipal Code. 102. Street names will not duplicate; those already being PO Approval of final PO used in other segments of the City. Map 103. CC&R's for the residential portion of the project will PO Approval of Final PO include posting of private street areas in accordance Map with California Vehicle Code Section 22658, sections 1 & 2. Fire lanes will also be posted in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1. 104. The Applicant shall submit a residential lighting plan PO Issuance of PO with point by point photometric measurements for Improvement connecting paths, and outdoor parking areas. The Plans Applicant shall submit a final lighting plan for approval by Dublin Police. 105. The Applicant shall keep the site clear of graffiti PO Ongoing PO vandalism on a regular and continuous basis at all times. Graffiti resistant material should be used. 106. The Applicant shall work with Dublin Police on an PO Ongoing PO ongoing basis to establish an effective theft prevention and security program. 107. The perimeter of the site shall be fenced (minimum PO Issuance of PO height of six feet) during construction, and security Building Permits lighting, alarm system, surveillance cameras and or Start of patrols shall be employed as necessary. A temporary Construction address sign of sufficient size and color contrast to be seen during night time hours with existing street lighting is to be posted at entrance to site. The developer will file a Dublin Police Emergency Contact Business Card prior to any phase of construction that will provide 24 hour phone contact numbers of persons responsible for the construction site. Good security practices shall be followed with respect to storage of building materials and storage of tools at the construction site. Construction materials and/or equipment shall not be operated or stored outside of the fenced area or within the public right-of-way unless approved in advance by the City Engineer/Public Works Director. 108. Developer shall submit a projected timeline for project PO Approval of the PO completion to Dublin Police Services, to allow first Final Map estimation of staffing requirements and assignments. 109. The cul-de-sacs shall be separated from open space PO SDR PO areas by bollards, gates or decorative fencings to prevent access areas that are not publicly accessible. 22 NO. CONDITION TEXT RESP. AGENCY WHEN REQ'D Prior to: SOURCE If gates are used they shall be secured by lock approved by Police and Fire and provide for emergency response access. 110. Signs shall be placed at the ends of cul-de-sacs that PO Approval of PO are adjacent to open space with the name of the street. Improvement The street signs will assist emergency responders Plans identifying specific streets from the open space areas. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Planning Manager Planning Commission Chair G: IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SouthlPlanning CommissionlPCReso Schaefer VTM.doc 23 J m N 0 C L CL It N m M N Do 0 0 N N 0 H LEGALDESCRTPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE M THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEOA STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING ALL OF LOTS 261-296 AND PARCELS M ANDN AS SHOWN ON THAT SUBDIVISION MAP ENTFTLED'TRACT 6765, SCHAEFER RANCH" FILED IN BOOK 291 OF MAPS AT PAGES I THROUGH 51, RECORDED ON MARCH 8, 2007 IN THEOFFICEOFTHECOUNTY RECORDER OF ALAMEDA. VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 8% .nJJJJJ? J ?J J J JJJJ .,JJJ UNIM-Ful J 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, VIN CONTAIN ING. 4154 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. , 0 Sk Tr J -3. RE - AN s 9 01, J N 0 1. 8 0 0 0 CITY OF DUBUN ------- SCALE: 1"=60' SEPTEMBER, 2008 LEGEND VICINITY MAP / EXISTING JR vn gFIRE I11T11ANf GENERAL NOTES I 7 l, EM SANITARY SEWER -1 EM STOW DRAIN 1, OWNER: SGOEFER RANCH HOLDINGS, LLC 4061 PORT 04ICAGO HWY kH ' ( ( 253 EX WATER LIE -4 (9?6 9194620 PROPOSED z DEtiarom: DISCOVERY BUILDERS B 259 133 ? PORT CHICAGO HWY AH •? -r • , s ? ,' ?? r? ?.. \ O ' FIRE NNRANr LOT IRE (925) 6826419 ,.1 y \.-..- - \. IDf NUMBER 1 3. CIVIL ENGINEER: ISAKSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' 131 PIDAR61 A 4 98 ROAD *C f Ot 4 98 T 260 % rp,p:ay RXWOF WAY LINE CREEK, A 9 5 OLNU EEK,U9 5 WALNU (925) 937-9333 ' s? ` ) \ v SNOGRYSEWER STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN -? 4, SOILS ENGINEER: ENGEO INCORPORATED UNYONROAD, SURE 200 - S2401 CROW kl RA AN • SCALE: V-69 STORM DRAIN LIE , ( 925) `> \ 1 `/ 1 STREET SLOPE s, { WATERLINE 5. WATER SUPPLY: DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 1'05 N - r „ rW eeN 6. SO46N SERVICE: DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT - - / ?; FXMF/C 7, DaSTING LAND USES: ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (0.01-0.6 D,U./ACRE) u r:m'o a ., "T SNGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (0.9-6.0 D.U.14/AE) /:'? 1 ?' t ti?B2g: B ,?.• ROWTOROW 35LO RETAIUOFFICE As 7?P /P?v /: 6... •''' F w no pp?? ,n ??7§ B - ? RETAININII WALL 8. PROPOSED LOUD USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (0.96.0 D.U.IA;RE) /129 7 e 3e s ?\ , --A RSE OPEN SPACE a a4 ,,a ? //,?10 : ; ( ? p•°a .s ,1 s '! 99 w 77g• \1 L l 9, OGS ING ZONING: 501AFIER RANCH PD. B 51 /q .'. r.z.P,s r. xs 1?1=. : e F 1901v / j .. 10. PROPOSED 70MNG: S010EffR RANCH PD. _ a P.,ns l22 ?' o rn <„_ "C.P rc yqR \, y 76 ..Q 11, CONTOURS: 2 CONTOURS P.,e 12. ASSESSORS PARCES', 941-2835-0521NRU DTS, 941-2835-001 THRILL 003 941.2837-010TNRU021 15 4 xiR /ti 28 13. AREA: GROSS AREA=41.541 ACRES y ( r 'tA r-, ID P. 7 /d' w 04y 4 ?' ?, ? s rmy? 2 ' - PARCELA AREA =0.85ACRES \ !) ))i- Psma'/ T, is 4/ 11 P-?s 2 -'v,sea/ g P:,ees ?env, 'ron5 `: c2 PARCEL Al AREA =0.14ACRES 8 V ?77i PA4CEL9 AREA= 1072 ACRES S .P 13 / r 5: UeW 8 g a ??? r-,xr 40 (" / ,? c6o4d -F N PARCEC AREA=0,95 ACRES 14. PROPOSED GROSS DENSITY 471 D.UJGROSS AC. % t ,/11 ?0 .: 9? sdsW 87 IS. MT. RS, UNIT, 1. ASIDE. UNITS MAXIMUM LOT SIZE 10,270 ff (LOT 16) 1. a. 17 / e / - C 87 / MINIMUM LOT SIZE 4,875 SF (LOT 106) 1 \' ion e 9$ O - \ ?u 1 , a P„Ps P ' 68 AVERAGE LOT SIZE 6,949 SF 1 1 ,/115 II - 88 k 54 °A: .a \ ?\ 'BBB ,,??\^/ 1 ?9 / w ?? 9 9D a ?I ?? S 1 7 rA='nse A \ ??,\? 16. THERE ARE NO EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY :? 1 I ' ?a° Il4 -119 ` a aPeRg I ? ? v 17, PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP d R P1PM 92 09 ` P °r`?51NacR \ /• ??e$ ACT, THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MUUTPLE • 19 1E0 '? I' `s 5 FINAL MAPS ON THE LANDS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. A 53 4 ? 4. u, ? r aP 0. • i?s a 1, \ m.a20 4.P Ps i:s !C y`? 0 5m?v W ?,a rU P_ wAL ND -T AowA p LOT IM 1I / III a 22. ,YO yg \ 9G 52 5 ?i - u - ? cs n Po452t ? u LOT 62 c J N' AS wALL '?? ;/} '? fG ' .P l / / J y, 51 R q5 yry R RETAINING 22 zP!s a wi e 4 ,a ti r \ B7 ?S a - o?-n?,o , P . 1 - I As NEEDED VAx ^ \ / G 50 HEIGHT OF 10' AR log" ? P 20 - a r-s ? • ? SECTION F-F ?'°"vd Peq 00 Y?f 'd;??`, 100 \ .? 4 \' °P"H '1. ?i aQ RO \' uA%Rt7unwR a L 9. ` sr k 4 R a o .r R 49 ,( PM EIEV WALL nTlcxr of ao' TRAIL DETAIL NOT rp SCALE (PER PLAN) PAD EIFv 1 ^' ' v 25/; L? e a J ?6T4 ? ? 1? a- A ? (PER Pux) Rnv P,r ?,?? /, b eo2d / 44 4? ?' g t g ?? \ \ 26 - ?,y 1 B - o n>do ,? 41 V 49 0. /y4'oP / a _`QQ - ?? W ? \ 'P:PSV`6 a>6T 4 f?7o , ? ,! j ,n s `.45 P..,ss 7v ? e bdTr V " ? II mr I \ ,, ?? . \'? o-a.Pm ?A D„ 40 "? r"` a A w L `? / `%97 a. e l' , l r NN $ m- r yr a n+. yam, ??:,. >'• \ \\ "°90 r 09 .'PQt? L / PAD ELEV 1. u s, r L. P.,qe i Sd ' _ $.,,.e PnQKr?Pa 7 ... ? \ , f ssRS o ? ? `t$ ,veP 477 (Q $- I 1 '!''-" -tj, ; ?. G' a 39 P AN ?}4 v orb / ! PAN) (PER RETAINING WALL smaW °M11O1tl1 w<WVmvr?.aN erg F \j'• ;•. ) ? 1 ', ,? ?% xDar OVER za' ?+ rya v r A\V. y? 40 r c mss.. 07 '• n !?y / ' Yo . s7o E 1 , 1 ??--T` 1 Lr? ?' !. x \\ sr 2 31 ` once°(?77r7:' N15 P, PAD ELEV SFCTWN E-E ?? _ r v?`? e .n s 32 ae (PER PLAN) 46' RIGHT OF wAY \ ,.R.o - ',., IYPICLL STREET SECTION 30 7? ,r l PARCEL B \ - a 3? 05 ` ?• __ ! vas _ / P.,e Tm 'sII E / \`4 ?/ - / ROAD 4 lSTA !433.49 - 10437.511. ROAD 5. -- m, 60A1MON OPEN. SP C: COURT A. COURT B At COURT C » ?.°. ('0.72 AC) - ?Q ?'., N - -' /?h \ \ ?- - , r' ! r` TYPICAL RETAINWG NOT to snit W v ° (,ref ?fyi - ? - . wr,R ewt J ./ Rh Pn r r TREAD 1 5 caxc 13' N8Y37 , E V{l t RNW NY It Ni \ o (TW LANOTOI TRAIL PARCEL LOT 122 I I I LOT 981 A I I A, • -- / 1 ro-a.nm n.¢.e.m rw rt'RY ?? 'N?ul' ?Ly„' , a Pn ar awn w.P•"'141r.o sscm \ Puc c"orwwNV ,v '? \ .,. Jm.. wn P,smrun sera au mxw rwv Nr ,K°,Pr wu c ssrwas n sn. PuH • - 1 •' nomrw c PaeAs Pn v own EM. NEW E%. NEW nv P,w Imj a 'ATE S AY R/W R/W R/W R/W RAW SECTION C-C 'ml SECTNIN D-D 'R. 110' R/YI 1vANRS 'D' es' BS' R Of WAY 50' RNRIT OF WAY TO Ba _ '- - 1 ?? AMA To . .p 1r.. " TYPICAL STR TREET SECTION TYPICAL STREET SECTION •\ _ ?es ceucum 1 • vsgxs ip o -A TO ROAD 4 (STA 1446.73 - 6472.15) ROAD 1. ROAD 2 ROAD 3. COURT D t COURT E \\y, - - \ -.. - TO pWtx BLW 'p H OEDGTED NOT TO -E Iql To RALl \ Ny"' vucs,D rD n. 1 s'-p s-p 1 10 -11 erw - sa u ' / " ?? \ A _ e 6 's ,: u n Ix a }?a{ 1 mw e 1 ?- LOT n raa«am? m 1 LOT 1. 1 _*L"Y A •rnwD• ?w;? _un _. ° ,.w veOlHSla+ VILSIING ItNIAHVIL MAFP ?? - -_ .y !- n l , Na R pxT r miP 1 Ott OF DUBOW AULEDA CPN' CAUFORMA SECTION A-A s oRem " SECTION B-B Ns ?? AeJ 110' RIGHT OF WAY Nvrrcx 65' RIGHT OF WAY ,. a F I TI T "°'" EXISTING STREET SECTION `7"I 1 Assoc Inc. XS..NG STRrE SECTION ure LIN BOULEVARD DUBLIN BOULEVARD I ?_ tl '/ ' I civil slond engineering . crm., a.. s- cl NOT To seuE NOT To seuE nT TT1 l1 W 1 "L 7?ng wN. R . s eeew. cA RNSSe P..,..rxzs ,Trssu EXHIBIT A TO A TT A !ITT IR,fT WTT I I 1 c&%-KlivlGil 14 RECEIVED n n Anna "g ()CT U N t-uuu 14 DUBLIN PLANNING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE M THE CITY OF DUBLIN, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOLLOWS: r AND N AS , ??, ??, LRR. , ' , , \ , , BEING ALL OF LOTS SHOWN NTHATSUBDIVISION MAAPP ENT ENT AND PARCELS MITLED"TRACE SHOWN ?, ME S ' ' v ?'N ¦^ U v 6765,SCHAfFEFER PAN RANCH'FILED IN BOOK 2970E MAPS AT -8 PAGES 1 THROUGHI, S RECORDED ON MARCH e, 2007 M ..JUJU J J JJJJJ .JJJ J J J THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ALAMEDA +y STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (? CONTAINING. 41.54 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS. ^?? ? ? r , ? ? ? ??? r? ' ? 0 ' < < f J JJJJ .RJ J J CITY OF DUBLIN ew i SCALE: 1"=60' SEPTEMBER 2008 G LEGEND VICINITY MAP J m N 0 CL r 0 O O N N O F 3 O d a M O 00 O O E9 Z 3 a 0 C3 J 6i , .y?? i a -`3 r ? I 2 ?f I ?\ F S m C f 1 ,? 111 a-I t EXISTING EX FIRE HYDRANT x„ GENERAL NOTES EX SAWARYSEN9l -ate- L OWNER: sD1DFffR RANCH H01?DNS, LLE !S ?/1 ..? ?sa EX STORM DRAIN 4061 PORT 01 CAGO HWY xH FKWATER LIE CONCORD, CA 94520 (925) 682-6419 'I PROPOSED 2. DEVELOPER: DISCOVERY BUILDERS 5 )3a 4061 PORT CHICAGO HWY RH ?. ^ 2J9 FIRE \ r 1J i L? ?? \ HYDRANT CONCORD, CA 94520 ?M (925)682-6419 \ LOT LINE LOT NUMBER I 3. CIVIL ENGINEER: 2255 ISAKSON 6 ASS' O,17E5, INC ZZSS YGNW O VALLEY ROAD AC PAD AREA ;Olws WALNUT CREEK, CA94s5e i - q 250 RgEpPy),(r LINE (926) 9919333 k SNITMYSHA9l ?- 4. SOILS ENGINEER: ENGED INCORPORATED 90 `' \ V \ 2401 CROW CANYON ROOD, SUITE 2DO l 9 \ V SIDIW DRAM CATCH MSDi SIN RAMON, CA 94583 138 ?• )56 " SWE1'a5R STORM DRAIN IIIE a-- - (925) 838-1600 STREET SLOPE --? S. WATER SUPPLY: DUBLIN SON AIMON SERVICES DISTRICT s oe. ?3B ???,1 ,? l WATERLINE - --?? 6. SEWER SERVICE. DUBLIN SAN RPMON SERVICES DISTRICT 136 TR - _ I Y V..n i.y e/ • Oro FIX ? 7, EXISTING LAND USES: ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (0.01-0.8 D.U./ACRE) / Row TO ROW 345' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (0.95,0 D.UfAORE) R B A ? RETAI R4G WALL .--.--rr REIWI/OFFICE \\r v. ao 80 1 y 7\\. --.?{ P.S.E. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S. PROPOSED LAND LSE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (0.9-6.0 D.U./ACRE) OPEN SPACE 0? r eR' , - ?V i /I 9. EXISTING ZONING: SOONER RANCH PD. R L31 d' p, ,78 L0 Wron mN7W,' Sa4FRER RANCH PO. v I;E I A ,17 r?` .. Ae 1.:„? 78 / ",'4/P u. mNraLRS, rmNraLRs a 12 ?? I IZ ASSESSORS PARCELS: 9412835-052 TFIRU 075, 941-2835-00I THRU 003 15 9412837-010 THRU 021 133;7 _ / / / M1R7ae 74 / ?.? 13. MEN: GROSS AREA=41.541 ACRES .Sao 134%) N /?' `? rv3'e. 2 ' ?,' PARCELA AREA=0.85 ACRES .eke ¢C' ; / 2 j ` PM(ELA1 AREA=0.19 AIXS /70= ,.• ?? PMQLB AREA =1072ACRES t /V ?4 H4 )E 'T.- - ? A PMCELL AREA = 0.95 ACRES 2N' / '86 t " Y. 4-200/ 98 '„J 14. PROPOSE) GROSS DENSITY 4,71 D.U./GROSS AC 29 " /, 94 B7 y )' 8 a- ??, u. TOTAL RES. UNITS IW RESIDENTIAL ervrrs ?'? i.+as ? ' noMO 1 1 see. PlueD '.? ??/ MAYIMLM LOT SIZE 10,270 SF (LOT 16) 98 I C 7 •?? ty MINIMUM LOT SIZE 4,875 SF (LOT 106) 58 ?? mR /' h A 88 I 54 ?`'?\ AVERAGE LOT 512E 6,9495E /r II 111 .57 ?: A BB ?' \ 16. THERE ARE NO EOS7ING TRSS ONIHE PROPEUY 5B \? R 85 UC` 17. PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP 5 `Pewe ;92 69 ACT, THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MIADRE en e 1 11 53 5 FINAL MAPS ON THE LANDS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. a) R PST ?T PIA3L A ti d 91 / \ n BD\` n P? W IM I PASO mAa AxD cwr Row R P e.exh P/ r "?` ( 90 / 52 LOT e2 A D e ;'?` ?1 i II \ ll l li" \ Y \51 ;, 61 AS WALL t6 As NEEDE [oEOUAA u HLI6HI U! 3.U I 100 4, ? P.v . . I G , ?s ? ?r . a SECTON i P?-- CY' 49 uaG. RETANING Z. WALL TRAIL DETAIL ?' - PAD EIEV nDOHt OF a 2a' 101 / N 1.2., / -F (PER PIAN) No7 To %AG X42 \. A ,I 1 / PAD EEV 440? TNT N8717, EEy}?(j ?]?C i l J, 1 -- 110' RIGHT OF WAY F_XI5_TING STREET SECTION DUBLIN BOULEVARD NOT TO SCALE SLOIIUN U-E 65' RICHT OF WAY EXISTING STREET SECTION DURINO BOULEVARD x07 70 e[AlF PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN rY OF DUBUN ALUIEDA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Isc*mjaAs= bR 5Dgm65nrq ? 9?rrfpny / (PER PLAN) R/w RV .: I Y - ? f R I I )YR yy $ maW ?rm 7. a n» ywP PAD ELEV (PER PLAN) 1 RE7.NNIHC wnu Imaw '0Y1 AL1°' HEIGHT OMR 2.0' rtR.M.m,aaa4L s,w Ire.i °? PFD ELEV SECION E-E j- ` (PER PUN) AII RIGHT OE WlY I 1YPICLL STREET SECTION 1 ROAD ? (STN 6+37.A9 - 10+37.'SA1. ROAD S. A „ ' COURT A COURT B ! COURT C ,. ........ ......-.. WIT To SGIL Rn Rn R,7, If E PARCEL LDr 122 F A an INS ' a.a,e ,R,n ?Tmlml Ve De (ml Uyuu' Mx'siww sm uu, ?rwm sse..s. Lr -n mu w, ?.. s.,u caR.i a SECTION C-C mR.i ? SECTION 0-0 3S' RIGHT OF WAY 50' RIGHT OF WAY TYPICAL STREET SECTION TYPICAL STREET SECTION ROAD / (STA T+16.73 - 6+72157 ROAD 1. ROAD Z. ROAD S. 1 D t COURT E NOT To ?NE No, TD,?H b a 3 W Mal I N 2 6 C RECEIVED a u%i ? 0 3 Z008 C I)UBLI!? P',AUNI - NG 0 N D -) _, ;, i o ?i 11-7 RESOLUTION NO. 08 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC (APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 941-2835-001 to 00;;, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021) PA 08-005 WHEREAS, the Applicant, Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, has requested approval of a Development Agreement for approximately 42.7-acres of the Schaefer Ranch project area generally located to the southwest and southeast of the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road, referred to herein as the "project area."; and WHEREAS, the project area subject to the requested Development Agreement includes the area that is subject to Vesting Tentative Map 8000 and Parcels J & K of Vi-,sting Tentative Map 6765; and WHEREAS, pursuant to C EQA, the City Staff prepared z n Initial Study, included herein by reference, to determine if further environmental review was required under Sections 21166 and 15162/3. The analysis in the Initial Study determined that none of the standards requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental E1R under these sections were met. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162/3 may be included in an addendum. Therefore, an Addendum has been prepared, a copy of which is included herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the Addendum and Initial Study were considered by the Planning Commission together with the Schaefer Ranch E1R at a properly noticed public h°aring on the project on October 14, 2008. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 08-XX recommending City Council approval of the CEQA Addendum; and WHEREAS, the text of the Draft Development Agreement is attached to this resolution along with the draft Ordinance marked as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on October 14, 2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard: and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated October 14, 2008 was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the Project and recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance approving the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony herein above set forth and used its independent judgment to evaluate the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding the proposed Development Agreement: Attachment 5 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan in that: a) the amended General Plan land use designations for the subject project area are Single-Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre), Public/Semi-Public, and Open Space; b) the project is consistent with the City's fiscal policies in relation to provision of infrastructure and public services of the City's General Plan; c) the Agreement sets forth the rules the Applicant and City will be governed by during the development process. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located because the project approvals for PA 08-005 include a General Plan Amendment, PD-Planned Development Rezone with a Stage 2 Development Plan, and Vesting Te Ztative Map 8000. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice in that the Applicant's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the Dublin General Plan. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the development will proceed in accordance with the Agreement and any Conditions of Approval for the Project. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property or the preservation of property values in that the development will be consistent with the City of Dublin General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED 'CHAT the City of Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (PA 08-005). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October of 2008. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commi 3sion Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager G: IPA#120081PA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SoathIPlann,ng COmm%ssionIPCReso Schaefer DA.doc Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. XX - 08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS LLC (APNs 941-2832-027 to 028, and 941-2835-001 to 003, and 052 to 075, and 941-2837-010 to 021) PA 08-005 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS A. The portion of the Schaefer Ranch development, referred to herein as the "project", is approximately 42.7-acres located south of Dublin Boulevard at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and Schaefer Ranch Road. The project consists of the area that is subject to Vesting Tentative Map 8000, and Parcels J and K of Final Map 6765. B. A Development Agreement between the City of Dublin and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC ("Developer") has been presented to the City Council, Exhibit A, atta.-,hed hereto. C. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the Planning Commission on October 14, 2008, for which public notice was given as provided by law. D. The Planning Commission has, by Resolution 08-XX, recommended that the City Council approve the Development Agreement.. E. A public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement was held before the City Council on , 2008 for which public notice was given as provided by law. F. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, including the Planning Commission's reasons for its recommendation, the Agenda Statement, all comments received in writing, and all testimony received at the public hearing. SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Therefore, on the basis of (a) the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein; (b) the City of Dublin General Plan; (c) the Planned Development Zoning (PA 08-005); (d) the EIR for Schaefer Ranch (SCH #95033070) certified by the City Council in 1996 by Resolution 76-96; (e) the Addendum to the previously certified EIR prepared for the Schaefer Ranch South project PA 08-005 adopted by City Council Resolution xx-08; (f) the Agenda Statement, and on the basis of the specific conclusions set forth below, the City Council finds and determines that: 1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified and contained in the City's General Plan, in that: (a) the General Plan land use designations for the site are Single-Family Residential and Public/Senii-Public; (b) the proposed project is consistent with the designated land uses; (c) the project is consistent with the fiscal policies of the General EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 5 Plan with respect to the provision of infrastructure and public s,°rvices; and (d) the Development Agreement includes provisions relating to vesting of development rights, and similar provisions set forth in the General Plan. 2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located in that the project approvals include Planned Development zoning Stage 2 Planned Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Map 8000. 3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with p ablic convenience, general welfare, and good land use policies in that the Developer's project will implement land use guidelines set forth in the General Plan which have planned for Single-Family Residential and Public/Semi-Public uses at this location. 4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare in that the Developer's project will proceed in accordance with all the programs and policies of the General Plan. 5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect he orderly development of property or the preservation of property values in that the project will be consisrent with the General Plan. SECTION 3. APPROVAL The City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement (Exhibit A) and authorizes the Mayor to execute it. SECTION 4. RECORDATION Within ten (10) days after the Development Agreement is fully exe-,uted by all parties, the City Clerk shall submit the Agreement to the County Recorder for recordation. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND POSTING OF ORDINANCE This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days fro:n and after the date of its passage. The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause the Ordinance to b: posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of th.- Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this day of , 2008 by the following votes: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 2 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk G: WA412008WA 08-005 Schaefer Ranch SouWCity CouncibCC Ord Schaefer DA.doc RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF DUBLIN When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Fee Waived per GC 27383 Space above this line for Recorder's use DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND SCHAEFER RANCH HOLDINGS I_LC (SCHAEFER RANCH SOUTH_ PROJECT) Exhibit A EXHIBIT A TO ATTACHMENT 5 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered in the City of Dublin on this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Dublin, a Municipal Corporation (hereafter "City"), and Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC, a California limited liability company (hereafter "Developer"), pursuant to the authority of §§ 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.56. RECITALS A. California Government Code §§ 65864 et :seq. and Chapter 8.56 of the Dublin Municipal Code (hereafter "Chapter 8.56") authorize the City to enter into an agreement for the development of real property with any person having a legal or equitable interest in such property in order to establish certain development rights in such property; and B. DEVELOPER desires to develop and hold3 legal interest in certain real property consisting of approximately 42.7 acres of land, located in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and which real property is hereafter called the "Property'; and C. Developer proposes the development of the Property with 140 residential units (the "Project"); and D. Developer has applied for, and City has approved various land use approvals in connection with the development of the Prcject, including an amendment to the General Plan (City Council Resolution No. ), a PD District rezoning and related Stage 2 development plan (City Council Ordinance No. and Vesting Tentative Map (Planning Commission Resolution No. _) (collectively, together with any approvals or permits now or hereafter issued with respect to the Project, the "Project Approvals"); and E. Development of the Property by Developer may be subject to certain future discretionary approvals, such as Site Development Review, which, if granted, shall automatically become part of the Project: Approvals as each such approval becomes effective; and F. City desires 1he timely, efficient, orderly and proper development of said Project; and G. The City Council has found that, among otter things, this Agreement is consistent with its General Plan and has been reviewed and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 8.56; and Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 2 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Projoct) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 H. City and Developer have reached agreement and desire to express herein a development agreement that will facilitate deve'opment of the Project subject to conditions set forth herein; and 1. On , 2008, the City Council of the City of Dublin adopted Ordinance No. _ approving this Agreement. The ordinance took effect on , 2008 ("the Approval Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, with reference to the foregcing recitals and in consideration of the mutual promises, obligations and covenants herein contained, City and Developer agree as follows: AGREEMENT Description of Proper/. The Property that is the subject of this Agreemen: is described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 2. Interest of Developer. The Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property in that it owns the Property in fee simple. 3. Relationship of City and Developer. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer and that the Developer is not an agent of City. The City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers or partners. 4. Effective Date and Term. 4.1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the Approval Date. 4.2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall ccmmence on the Effective Date and extend fifteen (15) years thereafter, unless said term is otherwise terminated or modified by circumstances set forth in this Agreement. 5. Use of the Propert y. Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 3 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Projoct) FINAL Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 5.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Project Approvals (as and when issued,, and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing amendments to the Project Approvals shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. 5.2. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities (operated by City) and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property, shall be those set forth in this Agreement, the Project Approvals and any amendments to this Agreement or the Project Approvals. 5.3. Subsequent Discretionary Approvals. At Developer's sole discretion and in accordance with Developer's construction schedule, Developer shall apply for such other permits and approvals as may be required by other governmental or quasi-governmental entities in connect on with the development of, or the provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate with Developer in its efforts to obtain such permits and apprcvals. 6. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. 6.1. Rules re Permitted Uses. For the term of this Agreement, the City's ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing the permitted uses of the Property, governing density and intensity of use of the Property and the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed buildings shall be those in force and effect on the Effective Date of the Agreement. 6.2. Rules re Design and Construction. Unless otherwise expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Project sl-all be those in force and effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether the date of that approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies governing design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall be those in force aid effect at the time of the applicable discretionary approval, whether date of approval is prior to or after the date of this Agreement. Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 4 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Proj')ct) FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 6.3. Construction Codes Applicable. Unless expressly provided in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement, the Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the City's building, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and housing codes as provided in Chapters 7.28, 7.32, 7.36 7.40, 7.44 and 7.48 of the Dublin Municipal Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to Building Standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading, or other construction permits for the Project. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, any construction on that certain portion of the Property referred to as Parcels J and K on the final subdivision map for Schaefer Ranch (recorded in the Alameda County Recorder's Office on March 8, 2007 as Series No. 2007-99392 in Map Book 297 Pager 1 through 51) shall not, during the term of this Agreement, be subject to any ordinances, rules or regulations which would require green or sustainable building design and/or construction that may be subsequently enacted by the City. 7. Subsequently Enacted Rules and Regulations. 7.1. New Rules and Regulations. During the tE:rm of this Agreement, the City may apply new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of the City to the Property which were not in force and effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement and which are not in conflict with those applicable to the Property as set forth in this Agreement if: (a) the application of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, materially delay development of the Property, or impair the rights of Developer as contemplated by this Agreement and the Project Approvals and (b) if such ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations or official policies are uniformly imposed on all comparable residential projects within the City. 7.2. Approval of Application. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the City from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent land use permit or authorization for the Project on the basis of such new or modified ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and policies except that such subsequent actions shall be subject to any conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements expressly set forth herein. 7.3. Moratorium Not Applicable. Notwithstandi-ig anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event an ordinance, resolution or other measure is enacted, whether by action of City, by initiative, referendum, or otherwise, that imposes a building moratorium, a limit on the rate of development or a voter- approval requirement which affects the Project on all or any part of the Property, City agrees that such ordinance, resolution or other measure shall not apply to the Project, the Property, this Agreement or the Project Approvals unless the building moratorium is imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as defined in Government Code § 8558. In the event of a Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 5 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Proj act) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 building moratorium imposed as part of a declaration of a local emergency or state of emergency as described herein, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for the duration of such moratorium. 8. Subsequently Enacted or Revised Fees, Assess rents and Taxes. 8.1. Fees, Exactions, Dedications City and Developer agree that the fees payable and exactions required in connection with the development of the Project for purposes of mitigating environmental and other impacts of the Project, providing infrastructure for the Project and complying wi,:h the General Plan shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and in this Acreement. The City shall not impose or require payment of any other fees, dedications of land, or construction of any public improvement or facilities, shall not increase or accelerate existing fees, dedications of land or construction of public improvements, or impose other exactions in connection with any subsequent discretionary approval for the Property, except as set forth in the Project Approvals and this Agreement. .8.2. Revised Application Fees. Any existing application, processing and inspection fees that are revised during the term of this Agreement shall apply to the Project provided that (1) such fees have general applicability; (2) the application of such fees to the Property is prospective only; and (3) the application of such fees would not prevent, impose a substantial financial burden on, or materially delay development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.3. New Taxes. Any subsequently enacted city-wide taxes shall apply to the Project provided that: (1) the application of such taxes to the Property is prospective; and (2) the application of such taxes would not prevent development in accordance with this Agreement. 8.4. Assessments. Nothing herein shall be construed to relieve the Property from assessments levied against it by City pursuant to any statutory procedure for the assessment of property to pay for infre structure and/or services which benefit the Property. 8.5. Vote on Future Assessments and Fees. Ir the event that any assessment, fee or charge which is applicable to the Property is subject to Article XIIID of the Constitution and Developer does not return its ballot, Developer agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors, that City may count Developer's ballot as affirmatively voting in favor of such assessmeni, fee or charge. 9. Amendment or Cancellation. 9.1. Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations enacted alter the Effective Date of Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 6 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114 260 this Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement to comply with such federal or state law or regulation. Any such amendment or suspension of the Agreement shall be subject to approval by the City Council in accordance with Chapter 8.56. 9.2. Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be amended or extended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of the parties hereto and in accordance with thE; procedures of State law and Chapter 8.56. Any extension shall require additional consideration to the City which shall be negotiated at the time of a proposed extension. 9.3. Insubstantial Amendments. Notwithstandiig the provisions of the preceding paragraph 9.2, any amendments to this Agreement which do not relate to (a) the term of the Agreement as provided in paragraph 4.2; (b) the permitted uses of the Property as provided in paragraph 5.2; (c) provisions for "significant" reservation or dedication of land; (d) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (e) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (f) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (g) monetary contributions by Developer as provided in this Agreement, shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Planning Commission or the City Council before the parties may execute an amendment hereto. The City Engineer shall determine whether a reservation or dedication is "significant". 9.4: Amendment of Proiect Approvals. Any amendment of Project Approvals relating to: (a) the permitted use of the PropE rty; (b) provision for reservation or dedication of land; (c) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; (f) monetary contributions by the Developer; or (g) public improvements to be constructed by Developer shall require an amendment of this Agreement. Such amendment shall be limited to those provisions of this Agreement which are implicated by the amendment of the Project Approval. Any other amendment of the Project Approvals, or any of them, shall not require amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment of the Project Approval(s) relates specifically to some provision of this Agreement. 9.5. Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the parties or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.56. Any fees paid pursuant to this Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by City. Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 7 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Projoct) FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 10. Term of Project Approvals. 10.1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66452.6(a), the term of the vesting tentative map described in Recital D above shall automatically be extended for the term of this Agreement. 11. Development Impact Fees. The Project shall be subject to the City's Public Facilities Fee, Fire Facilities Fee, Downtown Traffic Impact Fee and Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee. Developer shall pay such fees in accordance with the resolutions adopting such fees. 12. Credit Against Public Facilities Fee Section 4 of the Improvement Development Agreement for the Schaefer Ranch Project approved in 1998 provides Developer with a credit of 1.47 acres which it can use by March 8, 2017 against the Public Facilities Fee obligation for "Community Parks, Land" ,and "Neighborhood Parks, Laird" for development on the Property. This credit may also be used against the P'roject's obligation under Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 (the "Quimby Act") for dedication of land, provided it is used by March 8, 2017.' In addition, Developer shall be entitled to two additional "credits" against payment of the "Community Parks, Land," "Neighborhood Parks, Land," "Community Parks, Improvements" and "Neighborhood Parks, Improvements" components of the Public Facilities Fee and the dedication provisions of Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 for the Project. First, Final Map 6765, recorded on March 8, 2007, included an offer of dedication of 4.83 acres which satisfied the "Community Parks, Land" and "Neighborhood Parks, Land" components of the Public Facilities Fee and Chapter 9.28 for 302 residential units created by Final Map 6765. If 36 of the approved 302 residential lots created by Final Map 6765 are resubdivided by a later recorded final map, resulting in construction of 36 fewer units than allowed by Final Map 6765, Developer shall be entitled to be "credited" with the "Community Parks, Land" ,and "Neighborhood Parks, Laird" dedication of Final Map 6765 with respect to Excess dedication and will not have to pay those components of the Public Facilities Fee for the Project. If fewer than 302 building permits but more than 266 building permits are issued fcr units to be constructed on lots created by Final Map 6765, the credit in this paragraph shall be based on any excess dedication attributable to the reduced numbE!r of units. Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 8 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 Second, the Project is entitled to a "credit" in the amount of the "Community Parks, Improvements" and "Neighborhood parks, Improvements" components of the Public Facilities Fee for up to 36 units if up to 36 fewer units are constructed as part of the Final Map 6765. The credit in this paragraph shall be based on the number of reduced units. 13. Contribution for Dublin Historic Park Developer shall contribute One Million, Five Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,500,000) to the City in two payments, as follows: Developer will contribute $750,000 to City for the Dublin Historic Park when Developer has (a) obtained all discretionary land use entitlements from City for the Project (with the exception of discretionary land Use entitlements for development on Parcels K and J created by Final Map Ei765) and the statute of limitations for a legal challenge to all such entitlements has run without suit having been filed, or if suit is filed, a final judgment has been entered and the time to appeal has expired or (b) upon issuance of the first building permit for the Project, whether a model or production unit, whichever occurs first. Developer will contribute $750,000 to City for the Dublin Historic Park prior to issuance of the 75th building permit for the Project, whether for a model or production unit. 14. Fire Station Site Developer will reserve Parcel K, as shown on Final Map 6765 for use as a fire station site. Upon 60 days' written notice from City, Developer will dedicate Parcel K to City for use for fire protection and suppression. This reservation and dedication obligation shall terminate two (2) years following the Approval Date but shall survive termination of this Agreement if the Agreement is terminated within two years of the Approval Date. 15. Public Art Program The Project will make a monetary contribution in lieu of acquiring and installing a public art project on the Property, as provided by Dublin Municipal Code section 8.58.050.D. The in lieu contribution shall be as provided in Dublin Municipal Code, Chapter 8.58, and shall be used by the City towards a public art component at the Dublin Historic Park. 16. Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance The Developer shall either (a) construct seventeE!n (17) affordable units on the Property and receive a refund of $178,824 previously paid, or (b) construct Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 9 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 ten (10) affordable units on the Property and pay in lieu fees in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 8.68, at the rate in effect at the time of payment, for seven (7) units. The Developer shall select either (a) or (b) at the time the Developer applies for Site Development Review approval for the Project. At such time Developer may propose to construct some of the seventeen or ten affordable units on lot(s) created by.Final Map 6765, provided Developer applies for and receives Site Development Review for any affordable units to be constructed on lot(s) created by Final Map 6765. All affordable units can be "granny units" or duplexes but, in either case, the units must comply with the general requirements of Section 8.68.030, including restrictions through either rental controls or resale restrictions recorded against the Property. Developer paid inclusionary in lieu fees for Final IVlap 6765 for fifteen (15) units, at $89,412 per unit, for a total of $1,341,180, basE!d on a 302-unit project. Upon recordation of a final map for the Project, 36 of thE: lots created by Final Map 6765 will be resubdivided and no more than 266 units can be constructed on lots created by Final Map 6765. If this occurs, Developer shall be entitled, pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code Section 8.68.040.E, -:o a credit in the amount of $178,824, as provided in this paragraph. If Developer constructs seventeen (17) affordable units as part of the Project, City will refund $178,824, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the seventeenth unit, together with interest at the rate earned by City from the date Developer paid said $1,341,180 through issuance of such certificate of occupancy on thE! $178,824. If Developer constructs ten (10) affordable units, City shall provide Developer with a credit in the amount of $178,824 against payment of in lieu fees payable for the Project. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute City Council approval for exceptions to the requirements of Chapter 8.68, as required by Dublin Municipal Code section 8.68.040. 17. Annual Review. 17.1 Review Date. The annual review date for -:his Agreement shall be between July 15 and August 15, 2009 and each July 15 to August 15 thereafter. 17.2 Initiation of Review. The City's Community Development Director shall initiate the annual review, as required under Section 8.56.140 of Chapter 8.56, by giving to Developer thirty (30) days' written notice that the City intends to undertake such review. Developer shall provide evidence to the Community Development Director prior to the hearing on the annual review, as and when reasonably determined necessary by the Community Development Director, to demonstrate good faith compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. The burden of proof by substantial evidence of compliance i;; upon the Developer. Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 10 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Proj act) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 1 14260 17.3 Staff Reports. To the extent practical, City shall deposit in the mail and fax to Developer a copy of all staff reports, and relai:ed exhibits concerning contract performance at least five (5) days prior to any annual review. 17.4 Costs. Costs reasonably incurred by City n connection with the annual review shall be paid by Developer in accordance with the City's schedule of fees in effect at the time of review. 18. Default. 18.1 Other Remedies Available. Upon the occurrence of an event of default, the parties may pursue all other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in City's regulations governing development agreements, expressly including the remedy of specific performance of this Agreement. 18.2 Notice and Cure. Upon the occurrence of an event of default by either party, the nondefaulting party shall serve written rotice of such default upon the defaulting party. If the default is not cured by the defaulting party within thirty (30) days after service of such notice of default, the nondefaulting party may then commence any legal or equitable action to enforce its rights under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the default cannot: be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the nondefaulting party shall refrain from any such legal or equitable action so long as the defaulting party begins to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and diligently pursues such cure to completion. Failure to give notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default. 18.3 No Damages Against City. Notwithstandirg anything to the contrary contained herein, in no event shall damages be awarded against City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. 19. Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, request written notice from the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, (a) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the parties, (b) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing, or if so amended, identifying the amendments, and (c) to the knowledge of the certifying party the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate within thirty (30) days following the receipt thereof, or such longer period as may reasonably be agreed to by the parties. City Manager of City shall be authorized to execute any certificate requested by Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 11 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Projact) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 Developer. Should the party receiving the request not execute and return such certificate within the applicable period, this shall not be deemed to be a default, provided that such party shall be deemed to have certifiod that the statements in clauses (a) through (c) of this section are true, and any party may rely on such deemed certification. Any request by Developer for a written certificaticn to a third party shall be accompanied by payment to City of a fee for such certification in an amount established by the Council from time to time. 20. Mortgagee Protection; Certain Rights of Cure. 20.1 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any doed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 20.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement, before or after, foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, to construct or complete the construction of improvements: or to guarantee such construction of improvements, or to guarantee such construction or completion, or to pay, perform or provide any fee, dedication, improvements or other exaction or imposition; provided, however, that a Mortgagee shall not be entitled to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by the Project Approvals or by this Agreement. 20.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Extension of Right to Cure. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Developer hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed set forth in the City's notice. City, through its City Manager, may extend the thirty-day cure period provided in paragraph 18.2 for not more than an additional sixty (60) days upon request of Developer or a Mortgagee. Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 12 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Proj-:ct) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 21. Severability. The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provisions, covenant, condition or term of this Agreement shall not render the other provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal. 22. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. If City or Developer initiates any action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in addition to any other relief to which it may otherwise be entitled. If any persoi or entity not a party to this Agreement initiates an action at law or in equity to challenge the validity of any provision of this Agreement or the Project Approvals, the parties shall cooperate in defending such action. Developer shall bear its own costs of defense as a real party in interest in any such action, and shall reimburse City for all reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding. 23. Transfers and Assignments. 23.1 Developer's Right to Assign. All of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder may be transferred, sold or assigned in conjunction with the transfer, sale, or assignment of the Property subject hereto, or any portion thereof, at any time during the Term of this Agreement, provided that no transfer, sale or assignment of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder shall occur without the prior written notice to City and approval by the City Manager of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The City Manager shall consider and decide the matter 'Nithin ten (10) working days after Developer's notice is given to City and receipt by City Manager of all necessary documents, certifications and other information required by City Manager to decide the matter. In considering the request, the City Manager shall base the decision upon the proposed assignee's reputation, experience, financial resources and access to credit and capability to successfully carry out the development of the Property to completion. The City Manager's approval shall be for the purposes of: (a) providing notice to City; (b) assuring that all obligations of Developer are fully allocated as between Developer and the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee; and (c) assuring City that the proposed purchaser, transferee or assignee is capable of performing Developer's obligations hereunder not withheld by Developer pursuant to Paragraph 23.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, provided notice is given as specified in Paragraph 24, no City approval shall be required for any transfer, sale, or assignment of this Agreement to: (1) any entity which either (i) is an affiliate or subsidiary of Developer or (ii) results from the merger of Developer or its parent or is the Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 13 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL -Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 purchaser of all, or substantially all, of the assets of Developer or its parent; (2) any Mortgagee; or (3) any transferee of a Mortgagee. 23.2 Release Upon Transfer. Upon the transfer, sale, or assignment of all of Developer's rights, interests and obligations hereunder pursuant to Paragraph 23.1 of this Agreement, Developer shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement, with respect to the Property transferred, sold, or assigned, arising subsequent to the date of City Manager approval of such transfer, sale, or assignment; provided, however, that if any transferee, purchaser, or assignee approved by the City Manager expressly assumes all of the rights, interests and obligations of Developer under this Agreement, Developer shall be released with respect to all such rights, interests and assumed obligations. In any event, the transferee, purchaser, or assignee shall be subject to all the provisions hereof and shall provide all necessary documents, certifications and other necessary information prior to City Manager approval. 23.3 Developer's Right to Retain Specified Rights or Obligations. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 23.1 and 23.2 and Paragraph 24, Developer may withhold from a sale, transfer or assignment of this Agreement certain rights, interests and/or obligations which Developer shall retain, provided that Developer specifies such rights, interests and/or obligations in a written document to be appended to this Agreement and recorded with the Alameda County Recorder prior to the sale, transfer or assignment of the Property. Developer's purchaser, transferee or assignee shall then have no interest or obligations for such rights, interests and obligations and this Agreement shall remain applicable to Developer with respect to such retained rights, interests and/or obligations. 23.4. Termination of Agreement Upon Sale of Individual Lots to Public. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the burdens of this Agreement shall terminate as to any lot which has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") leased (for a period of longer than one year) or sold to the purchaser or user thereof and thereupon anc without the execution or recordation of any further document or instrument such lot shall be released from and no longer be subject to or burdened by the provisions of this Agreement; provided, however, that the benefits of this Agreement shall continue to run as to any such lot until a building is constructed on such lot, or until the termination of this Agreement, if earlier, at which time this Agreement ;;hall terminate as to such lot. 24. Agreement Runs with the Land. All of the provisions, rights, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors and assignees, representative's, lessees, and all other persons acquiring the Property, or any portion thereof, or any interest Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 14 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. All of the provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and shall constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable laws, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do, or refrain from doing, some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any owned property, (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such properties, (b) rur s with such properties, and (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and shall be a benefit to and a burden upon each party and its property hereunder and each other person succeeding to an interest in such properties. 25. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 26. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and 1-old harmless City, and its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives from any and all claims, costs (including legal fees and costs) and liability for any personal injury or property damage which . may arise directly or indirectly as a result of any actions or inactions by the Developer, or any actions or inactions of Developer's cc ntractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction, improvement, operation, or maintenance of the Project, provided that Developer shall have no indemnification obligation with respect to negligence or wrongful conduct of City, its contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees or with respect to the maintenance, use or condition of any improvement after the time it has been dedicated to and accepted by the City or another public entity (except as provided in an improvement agreement or maintenance bond). 27. Insurance. 27.1 Public Liability and Property Damage Insu-ance. During the term of this Agreement, Developer shall maintain in effect a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance with a per-occurrence combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) with a One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) self insurance retention per claim. The policy so maintained by Developer shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include either a severability of interest clause or cross-liability endorsement. 27.2 Workers Compensation Insurance. During the term of this Agreement Developer shall maintain Worker's Compensation insurance for all Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 15 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 persons employed by Developer for work at the Project site. Developer shall require each contractor and subcontractor similarly to provide Worker's Compensation insurance for its respective employees. Developer agrees to indemnify the City for any damage resulting from Developer's failure to maintain any such insurance. 27.3 Evidence of Insurance. Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Developer shall furnish City satisfactory evidence of the insurance required in Sections 27.1 and 27.2 and evidence that the carrier is required to give the City at least fifteen days prior written notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of a policy. The insurance shall extend to the City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and representatives and to Developer performing work on the Project. 28. Sewer and Water. Developer acknowledges that it must obtain water and sewer permits from the Dublin San Ramon Services District ("DSRSD") which is another public agency not within the control of City. 29. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 FAX No. (925) 833-6651 Notices required to be givEm to Developer shall be addressed as follows: Schaefer Ranch Holdings, LLC 4021 Port Chicago Hwy. Concord, CA 94520 Attn: General Counsel FAX No. (925) 687-3366 A party may change address by giving notice in viriting to the other party and thereafter all notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. Notices shall be deemed given and received upon personal delivery, or if mailed, Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 16 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South ProjBCt) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 upon the expiration of 48 hours after being deposited in the United States Mail. Notices may also be given by overnight courier which shall be deemed given the following day or by facsimile transmission which shall be deemed given upon verification of receipt. 30. Agreement is EntirE; Understanding. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 31. Exhibits. The following documents are referred to in this Agreement and are attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Legal Description of Property 32. Counterparts. This Agreement is executed in two (2) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. 33. Recordation. City shall record a copy of this Agreement within ten (10) days following execution by all parties. [EXECUTION PAGE FOLLOWS] Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 17 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Project) FINAL - Schaefer Ranch South DA.DOC; 114.260 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date and year first above writt0n. CITY OF DUBLIN: By: _ Janet Lockhart, Mayor ATTEST: By: _ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney DEVELOP 1 9se: "rie side,-I- APPROVED AS TO FORM: D Worney for Developer (NOTARIZATION ATTACHED) Dublin/Schaefer Ranch Development Agreement Page 18 of 18 For the Schaefer Ranch Holdings LLC (Schaefer Ranch South Pro.ect) 1096320.12; 114.260 Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Containing 42.7 acres, more or lass. That land in the City of Dublin, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: Lots 261 through 296, Parcels M and N, Schaefer Estates Circle, Schaefer Estates Court, and Parcels J and K, all as shown on the map for Tract 6765, Schaefer Ranch, filed as Series No. 2007-99392 in Iblap Book 297 Pages 1 through 51, in the Office the County Recorder of said County, on March 8, 2007. ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Contra Costa On September 29, 2008 before me, Pamela Blessington, Notary Public, personally appeared Albert D. Seeno III, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(gwhose name(4 is/ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/.%WtP executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(it,,and that by his/hkLWr signature(,apn the instrument the person(184,,or the entity upon behalf of which the person&acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature PAMELA BLESSINGTON Comm J M0054 ,n "01A": 18LN •fJ1UFORNUI ?, CONTCOTTA COUNTY Ah Comm. UP. DEc. 11, 2010 'A (Sell) oe", I;V CITY CLERK File # ?910FO-1-©® `?LIFOR?'?AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2007 SUBJECT: Initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch Development located at the western terminus of Dublin Boulevard. Report Prepared by Jeff Baker, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution approving initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study. 2) Resolution denying initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study. 3) Vicinity Map. 4) Request letter from the Applicant dated July 18, 2007. RECOMMENDATION:/ ) 2) 3) 4) FINANCIAL STATEMENT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Receive Staff presentation; Receive presentation from Applicant; Receive public comment; and Either a) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study; or b) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study. The cost to prepare the General Plan Amendment shall be borne by the affected property owner who has requested this amendment. The Schaefer Ranch project is described in the City of Dublin General Plan and is located within the Western Extended Planning Area. The project area includes appro:timately 500 acres located at the westerly boundary of the City Limits and north of Interstate 580 (I-58C), and southeast of unincorporated Alameda County. The westerly extension of Dublin Boulevard leads into the project area where Dublin Boulevard terminates. Extensive grading activity is currently underway consistent with the approved Final Map. COPIES TO: Property Owner Applicant G:\PA#\1996\PA96037 Schaefer Ranch\ccsr 8.21.07 gpa request.doc Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. ?A Attachment 6 The Schaefer Ranch project area was annexed to the City of Dublin in 1996 at the request of the property owner. The original approvals adopted by the City Council in 1996 included a General Plan Amendment (Resolution 77-96), Planned Development Rezone (Ordinance 15.96 and Resolution 78-96), and certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Resolution 76-96). The approved project included the land uses as noted in Table 1 below. Table 1 -Approved General Plan Land Use Designations its Open Space 251.6 The Planning Commission approved Vesting Tentative Map 6765 (VTM) (Resolution 98-38) in 1998. The VTM created 465 residential lots (14 estate lots and 451 single-family lots), as well as parcels dedicated for commercial parcel, parks, and public/semi-public use,,,. The City Council approved a development agreement in 1998 (Ordinance 20-98) which expired on D-.cember 31, 2006. The Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR and the Conditions of Approval for the VTM required the project proponent to obtain permits from the various environmental regulatory agencies for impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other environmentally sensitive areas within the project. The project proponent successfully obtained approval from the environmental agencies. However, the approval from the various agencies required the preservation of Marshall Canyon ar d associated habitat for protected wildlife within the project area. The preservation of these areas resulted in the need to reconfigure a portion of the project. The Developer submitted a Lot Reconfiguration Concept to the City which reflected the requirements by the regulatory agencies. The Lot Reconfiguration Concept included 302 residential lots (18 estate lots and 284 single-family lots), a 5.69-acre commercial site, two public/semi-p iblic parcels totaling 1.15-acres, a 10.25-acre park site, and the dedication of land to the East Bay Regional Park District for a trail head staging area and trails. The City Council reviewed the Lot Reconfiguration Concept on December 21, 2004, and directed Staff to work with the Applicant to prepare a Final Map based on the Lot Reconfiguration Concept. The Final Map was deemed complete in December of 2006 and has subsequently been recorded. A Planned Development Rezone with Stage 2 Development Plan and Site Development Review (SDR) were approved in 1996 to allow construction of single-family homes within Schaefer Ranch (Ordinance 11-06 and Resolution 06-17). The Applicant is currently requesting the City Council to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study for the portion of the project that lies south of Dublin Boulevard and west of Schaefer Ranch Road (Attachment 3). Currently this area of the Schaefer Ranch development has three separate General Plan Land Use Designations: Retail/Office, Estate Residential, and Single-Family Residential. The Applicant proposes to change the existing Retail/Office and Estate Residential General Plan Land Use Designations to Single-Family Residential. The Applicant proposes to reconfigure :his portion of the project area to Eand:tl?? #1esrgnetion Ac??°` llit` Residential: Estate 99.8 11 Residential: Single-family 108 463 Retail/Office 10.7 -- Public/Semi-Public 33.9 -- -- Total 504 474 Page 2 of 4 include single-family homes with a (tensity that is consistent with the Single-Family Residential Land Use Designation. ANALYSIS: The Applicant proposes to construct single-family detached homes with a density range of 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre in place of the 5.69-acre commercial parcel and the 12 estate lots that are located south of Dublin Boulevard and west: of Schaefer Ranch Road (Attachment 3). This area of the Schaefer Ranch development has current General Plan Land Use Designations of Retail/Office, Estate Residential, and Single-Family Residential. The Retail/Office land use designation allows commercial uses such as stores, restaurants and service stations. The Estate Residential land use designation allows 0.01-0.3 dwelling units per acre, and the Single-Family Residential land ' use designation allows 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development of single-family detached homes with a density range of 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre is not consistent with the uses permitted by the Retail/Office land use de: ignation, and the proposed density exceeds the maximum density permitted by the Estate Residential land use designation. Therefore, Discovery Builders is requesting the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to change the Retail/Office and Estate Residential land use designations in this area of the Schaefer Ranch development to Single-Family Residential in order to allow single-family detached units with a density of 0.9-6.0 units to the acre which is consistent with the remainder of the Schaefer Ranch development. The current proposal would allow up to a maximum of 407 residential units (6 estate lots and 401 single- family detached homes) for the entire Schaefer Ranch project. The following table illustrates the current and proposed acreage and units per land use designation. The proposed amendment would not impact the existing sites designated for Public/Semi-Public and Park/Public Recre2.tion uses. Schaefer Ranch is not located within a specific plan area and therefore does not have a requirement to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City. However, a DA could be utilized in order to secure a community benefit if the City Council thinks that a community benefit is necessary as a result of the increased density. CONCLUSION: If the City Council authorizes a General Plan Amendment Study for Schaefer Ranch, Staff will: ? Determine the appropriate environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The type of environmental document could range fi om an Addendum to the existing Environmental Impact Report (FIR) for Schaefer Ranch to a Focused EIR that analyzes additional impacts. The type of environmental document will be determined once Staff has reviewed the proposed project. Page 3 of 4 Table 2 - Existing/Proposed Project Comparison ? Examine the proposed land use and density to determine if it is appropriate based on City policies and standards. ? Prepare a Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Site Development Review for the subject portion of the Schaefer Ranch development. Staff estimates that it will take 6-8 months to process the application request. The amount of time necessary to process this request will be dependent on the type of environmental review that is necessary. An Addendum does not require a public comment period and would therefore take less time to complete than a Focused F,IR. The City Council is only considering the initiation of a General Plan Amendment study at this time. The decision to approve or deny the request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study is within the discretion of the City Council. If the City Council initiates the General Plan Amendment Study, the project will come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Rezone with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, Site Development Review, Development Agreement, and other entitlements as needed. At this point, the City Council needs to determine whether a General Plan Amendment Study should be authorized for the Applicant's proposal. Both approval and denial reso'.utions have been included for City Council consideration (Attachments I and 2). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; 2) Receive presentation from Applicant; 3) Receive public comment; and 4) Either a) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving the request to Initiate a General Plan Amendment Study; or b) Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying initiation of a General Plan Amendment Study. Page 4 of 4 0 Mayor ckhart asked if the were any organizations that might be interested in providing a grant fo the project. Parks and Co munity Director Lowart stated that there ,ere so few organizations like that and so man rojects that it was unlikely, but Staf ould continue to look. Cm. Oravetz asked i he Councilmembers could e a field trip to the house. Parks and Community Director Lowart stated that she had photos that she would forward to the Council and also comet the familyto see if she could. arrange a visit by the Council On motion of Cm. Oravetz, secondgd by Vm. Hildenbranc. by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted ; SOLUTION NO. 153 - 07 PROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ROYSTO AMOTO ALLE'V & ABEY FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITE URAL SERVICES REL?TED TO DUBLIN HISTORIC PARK STER PLAN ADDENDUM &IHASE I IMPROVEMENTS NEW BUSINESS Initiation of -a General Plan Amendment Study for the Schaefer Ranch Development Located at the Western Terminus of Dublin Boulevard 8:20 p.m. 8.1 (420-30) Senior Planner Jeff Baker presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would review the request to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study to change the land use designation from Retail/Office and Estate Residential to Single-Family Residential for that portion of the Schaefer Ranch development located south of Dublin Boulevard and west of Schaefer Ranch Road to allow construction of single-family homes with a density DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING August 21, 2007 PAGE 353 '1G1 ?1b ATTACHMENT 7 0 0 range of 0.9-6.0 dwelling units per acre which was consistent with the Single-Family Residential Land Use Designation. Cm. Oravetz asked if there would be any area left that could have a convenience store or gas station - commercial designation. Senior Planner Jeff Baker pointed out a 1.15 acre parcel. that was designated as public/semi-public use and another small commercial parcel as part of the General Plan, just below the freeway overpass. Doug Chen, Project Manager, Discovery Builders, thanked the Council for considering the application. He stated they wanted to introduce new product mix at this point. Mayor Lockhart asked how large a home would be on those lots. Mr. Chen stated the typical lot: size would be in the range of 8,000 sq. ft. with a 3,000 sq. ft. home. Cm. Oravetz asked Mr. Chen if the developer was considering putting a convenience store in the development. Mr. Chen stated that at this time, they were not, but could look at different options. The Council and Staff discussed the feasibility of having a convenience store in that area. Would there be enough traffic and patronage to make a convenience store successful. There were residents that did riot want commercial in their neighborhoods. If the Council was interested, then now was the time to have Staff look into the possibility of retail as part of the development. The Council agreed the small pang el in the development should be left commercial. Richard Guarienti, Parks and Community Services Commissioner and Dublin resident, stated he had previously commented on a walkable community and maybe the City could save a portion of the commercial designation for a store within walking distance of those homes. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26 REGULAR MEETING n; M August 21, 2007 PAGE 354 '?"?R? i City Manager Ambrose clarified that the action before the Council tonight to initiate and then approve a General Plan was totally within the discretion of the City Council. They did not have to authorize General Plan amendments. It provided the Council with an opportunity to discuss with the developer items they would like to see as a result of the change and those could be memorialized in the Development Agreement and that General Plan Amendment in the future, if the Council should act on it, would be contingent on the Developer signing the Development Agreement. That opportunity did not happen often, but it was an opportunity when somebody requested the Council change the General Plan and Staff wanted to bring it to the Council's attention. Mayor Lockhart stated it was a good opportunity. City Manager Ambrose clarified that the Council would just be authorizing the study, not actually approving the General.Plan amendment. On motion of Vm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Scholz ar..d by unanimous vote, the City Council adopted RESOLUTION NO. 154 - 07 APPROVING THE REQUEST TO I1UTIATE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY City of'Rublin and the Tri-Vallev\,Housine Opportunity Center Maste_r_ Agreement for Servi 8:42 p.m. 8.2 \(600-30) Housing Specialist Jo Luccro presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council would consider proving a resolution adopting the Tri-Valley Housing Opportunity Center Aster Ag ement for Services. The CouncilX6_0?mmented that it m e sense to help Below Market Rate (BMR) homeownpils" with financial education. It s also a good idea to have the linking center DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES VOLUME 26o REGULAR MEETING W' August 21, 2007 \\?Cl PAGE 355 ' ??