Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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 ' ??